ReviewHealth science reports2025
A Comprehensive Analysis of Moist Versus Non-Moist Dressings for Split-Thickness Skin Graft Donor Sites: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Health science reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Article
- Nanofiber Matrix Dressing for Split-Thickness Skin Graft Donor Sites: A Randomized Comparative Clinical Study.Nanotechnology, science and applications · 2026Article
- Fabrication of a five-layer wound dressing containing chitosan-LL37 peptide for the treatment of EB wounds and deep exudate patients.Iranian journal of basic medical sciences · 2026Article
- Article
- Effect of hydrocolloid dressing combined with continuous nursing intervention on patients with permanent ostomy.BMC surgery · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Aims: This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluate the efficacy of moist versus non-moist dressings for split-thickness skin graft (STSG) donor sites, focusing on time to healing, pain management, and adverse events to guide clinical practice. Methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted across databases including Ovid/MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Scopus up to November 28, 2023. The study adhered to PRISMA guidelines. Eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were assessed for quality using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and Cochrane risk-of-bias tool, with meta-analysis performed using the DerSimonian and Laird random-effects model. Results: Out of 464 identified studies, 16 RCTs involving 1129 patients were included. Moist dressings such as Tegaderm, Hydrocolloid, Alginate, polyurethane, and hydrofiber showed a faster mean time to healing compared to non-moist dressings like Mepitel and paraffin-impregnated gauze. Hydrocolloid dressings were particularly effective in accelerating wound healing. Additionally, moist dressings were associated with lower pain levels during dressing removal and had comparable rates of adverse events. Conclusion: The evidence strongly supports the use of moist dressings, particularly Hydrocolloid, for STSG donor site coverage. These dressings promote faster healing and superior pain management. The study highlights the need for further research to address existing limitations and refine recommendations for optimal wound care interventions.
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.