ArticleWound repair and regeneration : official publication of the Wound Healing Society [and] the European Tissue Repair Society
Clinical Effectiveness of Monofilament Fibre Pads for Bacterial and Biofilm Removal in Pressure Injuries: A Retrospective Cohort Study.
Article in Wound repair and regeneration : official publication of the Wound Healing Society [and] the European Tissue Repair Society. 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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Monofilament fibre pads may offer an effective, less invasive method for managing biofilms in pressure injuries, but their clinical effectiveness in reducing bacteria and biofilms has not been fully evaluated. Although biofilm removal is recommended for wound management, less invasive methods applicable to daily care remain limited. Therefore, this study aimed to assess the effectiveness of monofilament fibre pads compared to gauze in reducing bacterial counts and biofilm burden in pressure injuries. This retrospective cohort study was conducted at a Japanese university hospital. Bacterial counts were measured before and after cleansing using a rapid bacterial quantification system, and biofilm reduction rates were calculated using a wound blotting technique that enables non-invasive and quantitative evaluation of biofilms across the entire wound bed. Linear mixed-effects models were applied to evaluate the association between cleansing materials and outcomes, adjusting for baseline bacterial counts or biofilm brightness and the DESIGN-R2020 total score. Thirty-four pressure injuries in 30 patients were analysed, with 27 wound cleansing procedures performed using gauze and 73 using fibre pads. Fibre pad use significantly reduced bacterial counts (β = 0.389, p = 0.011) and biofilm burden (β = 0.642, p = 0.003) compared with gauze. Sensitivity analyses confirmed that these associations were robust, particularly after adjusting for baseline bacterial counts and biofilm brightness. These findings demonstrate that monofilament fibre pads are effective in reducing bacterial counts and biofilm burden in pressure injuries. Their routine use may provide a practical and less invasive adjunct for routine wound cleansing or maintenance biofilm control by facilitating bacterial and biofilm reduction.
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.