ArticleInternational wound journal2024
New experimental model to evaluate the effect of negative pressure wound therapy and viscosity exudates in foam dressings using confocal microscopy.
Article in International wound journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Particulate Evacuation Under NPWT: Bench Evaluation of a Multilayer Foam Prototype Versus Commercial Dressings in a Simulated Exudate Model.International wound journal · 2026Article
- New experimental model to evaluate the effect of negative pressure wound therapy and viscosity exudates in foam dressings using confocal microscopy.International wound journal · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Negative pressure wound therapy is currently one of the most popular treatment approaches that provide a series of benefits to facilitate healing, including increased local blood perfusion with reduced localized oedema and control of wound exudate. The porous foam dressing is a critical element in the application of this therapy and its choice is based on its ability to manage exudate. Industry standards often employ aqueous solutions devoid of proteins to assess dressing performance. However, such standardized tests fail to capture the intricate dynamics of real wounds, oversimplifying the evaluation process. This study aims to evaluate the technical characteristics of two different commercial polyurethane foam dressings during negative pressure wound therapy. We introduce an innovative experimental model designed to evaluate the effects of this therapy on foam dressings in the presence of viscous exudates. Our findings reveal a proportional increase in dressing fibre occupancy as pressure intensifies, leading to a reduction in dressing pore size. The tests underscore the pressure system's diminished efficacy in fluid extraction with increasing fluid viscosity. Our discussion points to the need of establishing standardized guidelines for foam dressing selection based on pore size and the necessity of incorporating real biological exudates into industrial standards.
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.