Trial reportInternational wound journal2024
Clinical performance and cost-effectiveness of a Silicone foam with 3DFit™ technology in chronic wounds compared with standard of care: An open randomised multicentre investigation.
Trial report 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 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Efficacy of silicone foam dressings in preventing pressure injuries in the sacral and heel areas of patients: a meta-analysis.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Effectiveness of a Rotating-Leg Prepper for Reducing Pressure Injury and Preventing Surgical Site Infection in Patients Undergoing Heart Surgery: Paired Matching Randomised Controlled Trial.International wound journal · 2025Trial
- Clinical performance and cost-effectiveness of a Silicone foam with 3DFit™ technology in chronic wounds compared with standard of care: An open randomised multicentre investigation.International wound journal · 2024Trial
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
The objective of the study was to show the clinical performance and cost-effectiveness of a Silicone foam dressing with 3DFit™ Technology compared to current standard of care. This was an open-labelled, two-arm, randomised controlled multicentre study conducted from February to December 2023. One hundred and two participants with an exuding, non-infected and chronic ulcer were randomised in a 1:1 fashion and treated with either a Silicone foam with 3DFit™ Technology or standard of care (a filler combined with a secondary dressing), stratified by venous leg ulcers and diabetic foot ulcers. After a 4-week study period, wound size and total costs were evaluated. After 4 weeks of treatment, a comparable percentage in wound area reduction was observed in both treatment arms with mean and 95% confidence interval of 54.3% (37.1%; 71.5%) and 43.0% (26.5%; 59.6%) for the investigational and comparator dressing, respectively. This corresponded to a mean difference of 11.3% ([-10.22; 32.86], p = 0.299). Total mean estimated costs were significantly lower for the investigational dressing (£14.3, 95% confidence interval [£9.6; £19.0]) compared to the two-dressing regime (£21.4 [£16.9; £26.0]), corresponding to a 33% price reduction (p = 0.033) after 4 weeks of treatment. With this RCT, a conforming Silicone foam dressing with 3DFit™ Technology was shown to be clinically comparable and a cost-effective alternative to using a filler and a secondary dressing at a significantly lower cost in both venous leg ulcers and diabetic foot ulcers up to 2 cm in depth.
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.