ArticlePloS one2025
Active electroceutical treatment of Pseudomonas aeruginosa infected murine wounds.
Article in PloS one, 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.
- Electrochemical modulation of host-microbe dynamics in wound healing.Frontiers in microbiology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Chronic, infected dermal wounds have a high burden of cost and remain a persistent hurdle within healthcare. Electroceutical dressings that deliver antimicrobial agents directly to the wound site have emerged as an alternative solution to current standards of care. Here, through a systematic evaluation in an infected murine wound model we report on an actively powered electroceutical dressing that generates hypochlorous acid in situ as an antimicrobial agent to clear infection. In a significant new discovery, we also report that the treatment of these infected wounds with the actively powered electroceutical promotes the closure of wounds better than other test conditions. In a 10-day murine study, mice were wounded, and the dermal injury was infected with Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Four treatment plans were administered to these wounds: no treatment, a commercially available electroceutical dressing, and our electroceutical dressing both powered and unpowered. The mice were subsequently sacrificed 8 days post infection. The powered electroceutical dressing demonstrated significantly reduced bacterial burden compared to untreated wounds. The powered electroceutical dressing also showed the highest wound closure with nearly 60% wound area reduction and approximately 36% percent re-epithelization of the wound bed in contrast to the no-treatment case. When compared against the other treatments, the powered electroceutical dressing demonstrated an improved capability in promoting wound area reduction while lowering infection burden.
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.