ArticleResearch and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis2025
Comparative analyses of the hemostatic efficacy and surgical device performance of powdered oxidized regenerated cellulose and starch-based powder formulations.
Article in Research and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Association of oxidized regenerated cellulose powder and tranexamic acid during total knee arthroplasty: clinical outcomes.International orthopaedics · 2026Article
- Development of a Rapid-Acting Oxidized Regenerated Cellulose-Based Powder for Hemostatic Applications.ACS omega · 2026Article
- Evaluation of the Performance of StypCelMedicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Article
- Highly Absorbent Ultrafast Self-Gelling Starch Microparticles for Robust Wet-Tissue Adhesion and Instant Hemostasis.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Hemostatic powders offer unique therapeutic advantages over other formulations, including ease of application and rapid distribution over large bleeding surfaces. The efficacy of powder-based hemostats is dependent on device performance, which is rarely investigated independently from efficacy. Objectives: The current study aimed to compare the hemostatic efficacy of an oxidized regenerated cellulose agent (Surgicel, Ethicon, Inc) and 3 starch-based biopolymers (Arista, Becton Dickinson; PerClot, Baxter International; and 4DryField, PlantTec Medical GmbH) and the performance of their delivery device applicators. Methods: Efficacy was evaluated in a porcine model of bleeding using 2 study designs where the powder was delivered with (experiment 1) and without (experiment 2) device applicators. Device performance (powder expression) was examined Results: Surgicel efficacy rate was noninferior ( Conclusion: The oxidized regenerated cellulose powder was the most efficacious hemostat, and the Surgicel applicator exhibited the highest performance compared with any of the 3 starch-based devices investigated. The current study highlights the relevance of combining high-efficacy powder hemostats with innovative, high-performance applicators to effectively manage bleeding control in surgical settings.
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.