Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39694469›Full record

ReviewInternational wound journal2024

Revisiting negative pressure wound therapy from a mechanobiological perspective supported by clinical and pathological data.

Amit Gefen, Serena Russo, Marino Ciliberti

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review 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 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
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

3 authors.

Amit GefenDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0223-7218
Serena RussoMediterranean Institute for Transplantation and Highly Specialized Therapies (ISMETT), Palermo, Italy.
Marino CilibertiWound Care Centre (Centro Aziendale di Riparazione Tissutale), Castellammare di Stabia, Italy.

Funding

Ministry of Innovation, Science and Technology 001702603Mölnlycke Health Care
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Negative pressure wound therapy is used often in the management of surgical incisions, chronic wounds and subacute lesions, and there are numerous publications discussing its clinical application and outcomes. However, whilst clinical use and associated literature have expanded since these systems became commercially available in the 90s, important research and discussion around the mode of action have waned, leading to a deficit in the understanding of how this important therapy influences healing. Further, much research and many publications are predominantly reflective, discussing early theorem, some of which have been proven incorrect, or at least not fully resolved leading to misunderstandings as to how the therapy works, thus potentially denying the clinician the opportunity to optimise use towards improved clinical and economic outcomes. In this narrative review, we discuss established beliefs and challenges to same where appropriate and introduce important new research that addresses the manner in which mechanical strain energy (i.e., deformations) is transferred to tissue and how this influences biological response and healing. In addition, we assess and discuss the effect of different negative pressure dressing formats, how they influence the mode of action and how this understanding can lead to more efficient and effective use and clinical economic outcomes.

Indexed as

Negative-Pressure Wound TherapyWound HealingAdultAgedFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedWounds and Injurieschronic wound careinfluence zone theorymechanisms of actionneo‐angiogenesisultrasound Doppler

Identifiers

PMID39694469
PMCPMC11655127

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.