ArticleInternational wound journal2026
In Vitro and In Vivo Comparison of a Novel Antimicrobial Wound Hydrogel With Commercial Wound Treatments: Antimicrobial, Antibiofilm and Biocompatibility Assessment.
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.
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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) and biofilm formation significantly hinder chronic wound management, necessitating safer and more effective therapeutic options. This study evaluates the antimicrobial, antibiofilm, cytocompatibility and anti-inflammatory properties of a novel antimicrobial hydrogel Formulation (#1) compared with commercially available wound hydrogel and cream Formulations (#2-5). Antimicrobial activity was assessed using minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) and minimum bactericidal concentration (MBC) assays against Staphylococcus aureus, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Candida albicans, and mixed-species cultures. Biofilm-related efficacy was evaluated via crystal violet (CV) staining and minimum biofilm inhibitory concentration (MBIC) assays. Cytotoxicity was examined using ISO-compliant MTT and confluency assays on L929 fibroblasts. In vivo anti-inflammatory effects were assessed using intra-cutaneous injection in New Zealand White rabbits with histological evaluation per ISO 10993-23. Formulation 1 showed the lowest MIC and MBC values across all pathogens, including polymicrobial cultures, indicating strong broad-spectrum efficacy. In biofilm assays, it reduced biofilm biomass by 50%-60% within 10 min and prevented new formation at lower MBIC values than Formulation 2, especially in mixed-species models. Cytotoxicity testing confirmed Formulation 1 maintained ≥ 81% cell viability across all concentrations, outperforming other products and meeting ISO and USP safety thresholds. In vivo, both Formulation 1 and 2 induced minimal inflammation, with Formulation 1 showing slightly milder tissue responses. Formulation 1 demonstrated strong antimicrobial efficacy, reliable biofilm control, and favourable cytocompatibility compared with the comparator formulations tested in this study. These findings support further evaluation of this formulation for chronic wounds complicated by biofilms and antimicrobial resistance.
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.