ArticleAdvances in skin & wound care2025
Pressure Distribution Properties in Wound Dressings Using Heel and Sacrum Indenters Under Clinically Relevant Loads.
Article in Advances in skin & wound care, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 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
1 citing paper 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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo understand the pressure distribution characteristics of a border and silicone version of a next-generation multilayered foam dressing (A and B) compared with three commercially available dressings (C, D, and E) using a novel pressure distribution model with clinically relevant pressures.
methodsThe testing setup included a support surface analog of K45 foam covered with polyurethane fabric, a high-resolution pressure mapping system, and a silicone layer to simulate overlying tissue. The dressing was exposed to clinically relevant loads of 30 and 80 mm Hg for 60 seconds using new sacral and heel indenters. A control was conducted using the same setup without a dressing. Statistical significance was determined using a 95% CI and t test with α = .05.
resultsAll dressings decreased pressure and increased contact area compared with the control ( P < 0.05). Dressings A and B had lower peak pressures than dressings C and E for both indenters. Dressings D and B had the largest contact areas and lowest pressures in the heel indenters, whereas dressing E had the smallest contact area and the highest pressures for both indenters. The results also demonstrated a strong negative correlation between the average pressure and the contact area for both indenters.
conclusionsUsing anatomically accurate indenters and clinically relevant pressures, the study demonstrated that dressings A and B significantly reduced interface pressure compared with no dressing, suggesting potential advantages for pressure redistribution in vulnerable areas. Additional clinical research in various care settings is needed to validate this study's findings.
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.