ArticleMedical devices (Auckland, N.Z.)2023
Safety and Performance of Hemostatic Powders.
Article in Medical devices (Auckland, N.Z.), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Enhanced hemostasis and bone regeneration achieved by thrombin-simvastatin-polydopamine loaded spray-dried β-TCP/ gelatin/ soy protein isolate biocomposites in critical rat calvarial defects.Materials today. Bio · 2026Article
- The impact of 4DryField PH on hemostasis and postoperative drain placement in thyroid surgery.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2025Article
- Comparative analyses of the hemostatic efficacy and surgical device performance of powdered oxidized regenerated cellulose and starch-based powder formulations.Research and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Hemorrhage, a sudden and severe leakage of blood due to the disruption of blood vessels, is one of the most common causes of death from injuries worldwide. Severe bleeding accounts for more than 35% of pre-hospital deaths and about 40% of deaths recorded within 24 hours of injury. One of the methods for achieving homeostasis is the use of hemostatic powders. This study compares the basic safety and performance of the most popular hemostatic powders. Methods: Basic safety of commercially available products were evaluated using MTT, MEM elution assay, and endotoxin testing. The in vitro performance was evaluated using water absorption capacity, water absorption rate, and adhesion strength assays. Results: 4Seal, Starsil, and 4DryField extracts did not cause cytotoxicity in MTT and MEM elution assays. PerClot and SuperClot extracts demonstrated cytotoxic potential in MTT assay, while Arista extract was cytotoxic in both MEM elution and MTT assays. 4Seal has the lowest endotoxin contamination, followed by PerClot, 4DryField, SuperClot, Arista, and Starsil. 4Seal and Starsil showed significantly highest WAR among the tested samples, followed by 4DryField, Arista, PerClot, and SuperClot. Adhesion force is highest for 4Seal, followed by Starsil, PerClot, 4DryField Arista, and SuperClot. Conclusion: 4Seal is the most versatile in terms of safety and functional properties compared to 4DryField, Arista, PerClot, Starsil, and SuperClot.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.