ArticleInfection and drug resistance2026
A Clinical Assessment of the Safety and Efficacy of VELVERT
Article in Infection and drug resistance, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Background: Necrotizing fasciitis (NF), a severe form of Necrotizing Soft Tissue Infection (NSTI), is a rapidly progressing, life-threatening condition characterized by extensive tissue destruction. Standard management involves early surgical debridement and systemic antibiotics; however, adjunctive wound care plays a crucial role in recovery. VELVERT Objective: To assess the safety and efficacy of Velvert antimicrobial dressing as an adjunct to standard care in patients with NSTI. Methods: A single-center, open-label, non-randomized clinical study was conducted at M.L.B. Medical College, Jhansi, enrolling 20 patients (18-70 years) with clinically diagnosed NSTI. After debridement, Velvert dressings were applied every fourth day for up to 60 days. Primary endpoints included complete wound closure and rate of healing. Secondary assessments were ≥50% wound area reduction, pain relief, dressing frequency, microbial load, surgeon satisfaction, and adverse events. Both Intent-to-Treat (n=20) and Per-Protocol (n=18) analyses were performed. The study was registered with CTRI (CTRI/2024/02/063282). Results: Complete wound closure occurred in 61.11% (11/18) of Per-Protocol patients, with an additional 16.67% achieving ≥50% reduction. Mean wound size reduction was 20.73 cm Conclusion: Velvert demonstrated safety and efficacy as an adjunct therapy in NSTI, enhancing wound healing, reducing pain, and offering a promising plant-based alternative to conventional dressings.
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.