ArticleInternational wound journal2026
Comparative Analyses of Cyanoacrylates for Barrier Protection and Incontinence-Related Wash-Off Resistance.
Article in International wound journal, 2026. 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.
- Comparative Analyses of Cyanoacrylates for Barrier Protection and Incontinence-Related Wash-Off Resistance.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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
A comprehensive skincare regimen involves cleansing, moisturising, and using skin barrier protectants. Cyanoacrylate-based protectants safeguard vulnerable skin from damage caused by moisture, friction, and shear. This research involved two ex vivo and two clinical studies comparing the wear duration and wash-off resistance of a 100% cyanoacrylate and a solvent-cyanoacrylate mixture. Effectiveness was assessed using an ex vivo porcine skin model simulating urinary incontinence, evaluated with Lucifer yellow dye penetration and Corneometry, and a clinical model using Corneometry. Two single-blind clinical studies measured skin surface electrical capacitance in healthy volunteers. Study 1 (n = 42) evaluated the wear duration over 8 days, while Study 2 (n = 52) examined wash-off resistance after nine washes with various cleansers. Ex vivo results showed that both products were effective under repeated moisture and abrasion conditions, with the 100% cyanoacrylate outperforming the solvent-cyanoacrylate mixture. In clinical studies, both products maintained barrier protection throughout Study 1 (p < 0.007) and none of the cleansers significantly degraded either product in Study 2. In conclusion, the 100% cyanoacrylate provided superior protection compared to the solvent-cyanoacrylate mixture. Both products demonstrated comparable wear duration and wash-off resistance in clinical studies, but the 100% cyanoacrylate was more effective in ex vivo testing under harsh 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.