ArticleInternational wound journal2026
Moisture-Responsive Thermal Conductivity Properties of Hydrofiber Versus Polyurethane Foam: Implications for Pressure Injury Prevention.
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 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Modelling and Simulation of Soft Tissue Loading Reduction at the Posterior Heel by a Moisture-Responsive Prophylactic Dressing.International wound journal · 2026Article
- Moisture-Responsive Thermal Conductivity Properties of Hydrofiber Versus Polyurethane Foam: Implications for Pressure Injury Prevention.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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Effective thermal management at the skin-dressing interface is essential in pressure injury prevention by means of prophylactic dressings. This study quantified the thermal conductivity of AQUACEL Hydrofiber Technology (AHT, hydrofiber) and polyurethane foam dressing materials under normothermic (32°C) and febrile (40°C) conditions across increasing moisture levels. Using a validated custom heat-flow meter system, dry hydrofiber exhibited significantly greater thermal conductivity than the polyurethane foam (0.43 ± 0.01 vs. 0.20 ± 0.01 W/m K at 32°C; p < 0.001). Upon hydration at 32°C, thermal conductivity values increased nonlinearly for both materials but to a much greater extent for the hydrofiber. At 15% moisture, the hydrofiber reached 4.73 ± 0.12 W/m K compared to the polyurethane foam at 1.03 ± 0.02 W/m K. At 40°C, hydrofiber achieved 3.39 ± 0.19 W/m K with only 10% moisture, indicating a temperature-responsive biphasic transformation. Overall, hydrofiber demonstrated a fivefold greater thermal conductivity response to moisture than the polyurethane foam. These findings highlight critical, material-dependent differences in heat dissipation under clinically relevant conditions. The superior moisture-responsive thermal conductivity of hydrofiber highlights its potential to improve heat dissipation at the skin-dressing interface under clinically relevant conditions and thereby mitigate local heat accumulation, contributing to skin protection. Thermal conductivity and thermal adaptability studies should be integrated into dressing efficacy research and be used for selection criteria for pressure injury prevention programs alongside mechanical and absorptive performance.
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.