ArticleAdvances in skin & wound care2025
Evaluation of Shear Force Redistribution and Microclimate in Foam Dressings Indicated for Pressure Injury Prevention.
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.
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.
- Moisture-Responsive Friction Adaptability: Rethinking the Conventional Skin Silicone Interfaces in Pressure Injury Prevention Dressing Designs.International wound journal · 2026Article
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 performance of a border and silicone version of a next-generation multilayered foam dressing (dressings A and B) compared with three commercially available wound dressings (dressings C, D, and E) in bench tests relevant for pressure injuries.
methodsTwo methods were used. The first measured shear force transmission through dressings in low- and high-shear force scenarios compared with a control with no dressing. The second measured the dressings' microclimate (heat and moisture) compared with two controls: one with high moisture output and one with no moisture output. Statistical significance was determined using a 95% CI and t test with α = .05.
resultsIn the low-shear scenario, dressing A showed the lowest force transmission, whereas dressing B was not significantly different from dressings C and E. In the high-shear scenario, dressing D had a significantly higher percentage of transmitted forces compared with the other dressings, with dressing A showing the lowest force transmission but no significant differences among the other three dressings. Regarding microclimate, dressing A showed no significant difference in relative humidity in the dressing-indenter and dressing-surface interfaces, suggesting good breathability. Dressing E had the highest temperature at the indenter-dressing interface, significantly different from the other dressings ( P < .05).
conclusionsThe study found that a next-generation foam dressing (dressing A) had better breathability and lower shear force transmission than other available dressings. This study emphasized the importance of understanding the physical properties of dressings to choose the most appropriate product based on individual patient needs, wound characteristics, and environmental conditions.
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.