Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41795914›Full record

ArticleInternational wound journal2026

Testing the Biomechanical Protection by Sacral Border Dressings in a Laboratory-Based Model.

Daniel J Gibson, Jack G Sherry

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in International wound journal, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Daniel J GibsonCapstone College of Nursing, The University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, Alabama, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0379-0100
Jack G SherryDepartment of Biological Sciences, College of Arts and Sciences, The University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, Alabama, USA.

Funding

Medline Industries Inc.
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Pressure mitigating dressings are one component of pressure ulcer/injury prevention strategies. There are many such devices on the market, but little data to compare them by. Herein we share our results of comparing sacral border dressings' capacity to mitigate deformations due to lateral forces. A modified version of a published digital image correlation-based technique was used to monitor the distortions of a cast silicone sheet under varying loads. Four sacral border dressings were compared to no dressing with three replicates for each. Empirical displacements within the gel were quantified via image analysis and compared via two-way ANOVA followed by Tukey's HSD test. Full field displacements were interpolated from the empirical data and the full field strains and shear were calculated and plotted. All four dressings were statistically significantly different from the control, but not among each other with magnitudes on the order of a hair's breadth. The maximum strains measured among the dressings were not significantly different in the direction of applied force, but two of the dressings were found to differ in the orthogonal direction, and those same dressings had computed strains equal to the control in the direction of the applied force. Our lab-based data indicate that four commercially available sacral border dressings reduce lateral strain under most conditions and shear under all conditions compared to no dressing. While the absence of clear tissue failure criteria limits direct clinical translation, these findings provide a straightforward and quantitative foundation for pre-clinical evaluation of sacral dressings.

Indexed as

BandagesMaterials TestingPressure UlcerBiomechanical PhenomenaHumansSacrumbiomechanicsdevice testingpressure injuriespressure ulcerssacral dressingshearstraintissue fate

Identifiers

PMID41795914
PMCPMC12967665

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.