Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39493589›Full record

ArticleJournal of infection prevention2024

Occlusive wound dressings: A greenhouse for bacteria?

Vendela M Scheer, Johan H Scheer, Anders Kalén, Lena Serrander

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of infection prevention, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  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

4 authors.

Vendela M ScheerDepartment of Biomedical and Clinical Sciences, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3268-1029
Johan H ScheerDepartment of Orthopedics, Department of Biomedical and Clinical Sciences, Linkoping University Faculty of Medicine, Linköping, Sweden.
Anders KalénDepartment of Orthopedics, Department of Biomedical and Clinical Sciences, Linkoping University Faculty of Medicine, Linköping, Sweden.
Lena SerranderDivision of Clinical Microbiology, Department of Biomedical and Clinical Sciences, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The modern wound dressing is produced to absorb fluid and protect against external contamination. The choice of which wound dressing to apply after surgery is usually based on local tradition. There are various impervious dressings on the market. Even if the wound is sterile before application, there will be subsequent recolonisation of skin microbiota. Previous studies suggest that a high bacterial load on the skin hampers wound healing and might be a risk for SSI. Aim: The aim was to compare bacterial recolonisation on the shoulder under three different wound dressings, 48 h after sterile preparation of the skin as in preparation for surgery. Method: In 25 healthy volunteers, a standard pre-surgical skin disinfection for a deltopectoral incision was made on the left shoulder with 0.5% chlorhexidine solution in 70% ethanol. Three different wound dressings were then placed on the shoulder, and 48 h later the skin beneath each dressing was swabbed, subsequently cultured and bacterial density analysed using viable count. Results: The bacterial recolonisation under air-dry (gauze) dressing was significantly lower ( Conclusion: Choosing a less permeable wound dressing may lead to an increased bacterial load on the skin during the first 48 h after surgery.

Indexed as

bacteria recolonisationocclusive dressingspost-operative dressingsWound dressing

Identifiers

PMID39493589
PMCPMC11528567

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.