Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39359044›Full record

ArticleInternational wound journal2024

Antimicrobial effects of a multimodal wound matrix against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and Pseudomonas aeruginosa in an in vitro and an in vivo porcine wound model.

Joel Gil, Michael Solis, Ryan Strong, Roger Cassagnol, Ivan Jozic, Stephen C Davis

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Joel GilDr. Philip Frost Department of Dermatology & Cutaneous Surgery, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, Florida, USA.
Michael SolisDr. Philip Frost Department of Dermatology & Cutaneous Surgery, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, Florida, USA.
Ryan StrongDr. Philip Frost Department of Dermatology & Cutaneous Surgery, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, Florida, USA.
Roger CassagnolDr. Philip Frost Department of Dermatology & Cutaneous Surgery, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, Florida, USA.
Ivan JozicDr. Philip Frost Department of Dermatology & Cutaneous Surgery, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, Florida, USA.
Stephen C DavisDr. Philip Frost Department of Dermatology & Cutaneous Surgery, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, Florida, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7075-7426

Funding

Omeza
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Chronic non-healing wounds pose significant challenges due to an elevated inflammatory response caused in part by bacterial contamination (Physiol Rev. 2019;99:665). These wounds lead to billions being spent in the health care system worldwide (N Engl J Med. 2017;376:2367, Int J Pharm. 2014;463:119). We studied the in-vitro and in-vivo antimicrobial effects of a multimodal wound matrix (MWM) against two common wound pathogens, Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA USA300) and Pseudomonas aeruginosa ATCC 27312 (PA27312) (Int Wound J. 2019;16:634). The in-vitro study conducted was a zone of inhibition test with the two microbes at 104 Log CFU/mL inoculated on Tryptic soy agar with 5% sheep blood (TSAII) plates. Treatments used were MWM, Mupirocin (Positive control for MRSA), Silver Sulfadiazine (Positive Control for PA), Petrolatum and Sterile Saline (both serving as Negative Controls). Treatments were allowed to diffuse into the agar for 3 h and then were incubated for 24 h at 37°C. The in-vivo study utilized a deep dermal porcine wound model (22 × 22 × 3 mm) created on six animals. Three animals were inoculated with MRSA USA300 and the other three with PA27312 with each allowing a 72-h biofilm formation. After 72 h, baseline wounds were assessed for bacterial concentration and all remaining wounds were treated with either MWM alone, Silver Treatment or Untreated Control. Wounds were assessed on days 4, 8 and 12 after treatment application for microbiological analysis. In-vitro, MWM exhibited significant inhibition of MRSA USA300 and PA27312 growth when compared to negative controls (p ≤ 0.05). Likewise, in-vivo, the MWM-treated wounds exhibited a significant (p ≤ 0.05) bacterial reduction compared to all other treatment groups, especially on days 8 and 12 for both pathogens. MWM demonstrated promise in addressing colonized wounds with biofilms. Additional studies on MWM's benefits and comparisons with existing treatments are warranted to optimize wound care strategies (Adv Wound Care. 2021;10:281).

Indexed as

Disease Models, AnimalMethicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureusPseudomonas aeruginosaWound InfectionAnimalsAnti-Bacterial AgentsBandagesMicrobial Sensitivity TestsPseudomonas InfectionsStaphylococcal InfectionsSwineWound HealingAnti-Bacterial Agentsantimicrobialbiofilmsfish peptidesmicrobiologyporcine model

Identifiers

PMID39359044
PMCPMC11447198

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.