ArticleDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2024
A Diagnostic-Driven Prospective Clinical Study Evaluating the Combination of an Antibiofilm Agent and Negative Pressure Wound Therapy.
Article in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundEach year, millions of Americans develop truncal pressure ulcers (PUs) which can persist for months, years, or until the end of life. Despite the negative impact on quality of life and escalating costs associated with PUs, there is sparse evidence supporting validated and efficacious treatment options. As a result, treatment is based on opinion and extrapolation from other wound etiologies. The ideal reconstructive plan maximizes the patient's nutritional status, incorporates the basic tenets of wound bed preparation (debridement, offloading, proper moisture balance, reduction of bacterial burden), and employs diagnostics to guide therapeutic intervention. The use of combination therapies can potentially overcome several of the barriers to wound healing. Negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT), a commonly used modality in the management of PUs, facilitates healing by stimulating the formation of granulation tissue and promoting wound contraction; however, NPWT alone is not always effective. Clinical studies examining microbial bioburden in PUs determined that most ulcers contain bacteria at levels that impede wound healing (>10
objectiveThus, we hypothesized that adding an anti-microbial agent to decrease both planktonic and biofilm bacteria in the wound would increase the efficacy of NPWT.
methodIn this prospective study, twenty patients with recalcitrant PUs that previously failed NPWT were treated with a biofilm-disrupting agent (Blast-X, Next Science, Jacksonville, FL, USA) in combination with NPWT. Fluorescence imaging was used to follow bacterial burden and guide therapy.
resultsIn total, 45% of the PUs reduced in size over the course of the four-week study, with a resolution of bacterial fluorescence in the NPWT dressing and wound bed seen in an average of three weeks.
conclusionThe combination of an antibiofilm agent and NPWT reduced bacterial levels and improved wound healing in recalcitrant PUs.
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.