Observational studyInternational wound journal2026
A Retrospective Real-World Data Analysis of Pressure Ulcer Healing With Nitric Oxide-Delivering Foam Among Older Adults.
Observational study 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Pressure ulcers remain a major cause of morbidity in skilled nursing facility populations, where frailty and comorbid conditions hinder healing. Numerous studies have established Nitric oxide's role in tissue repair, angiogenesis, and infection control, suggesting therapeutic potential for nitric oxide in chronic wound healing. A retrospective observational cohort study was conducted using de-identified data from skilled nursing patients presenting with pressure ulcers. Two matched cohorts (200 patients per group) were compared: Those treated with a nitric oxide-delivering foam and historical controls receiving standard of care. Propensity score matching accounted for baseline wound size, stage, sex, comorbidities, and treatment start date. The primary endpoint was complete closure (epithelialized or had an area of zero) within 12 weeks. Bayesian hierarchical hurdle-gamma regression estimated treatment effects using posterior means and 95% credible intervals. Within 12 weeks, closure or resolution rates had a significant benefit in the treatment group across most stages: 94% versus 79% for Stage 1, 80% versus 45% in Stage 2, 64% versus 28% in Stage 3, 39% versus 12% in unstageable, 34% versus 10% in Stage 4, and 67% versus 31% for Deep Tissue Pressure Injuries. Overall, 63% (95% CrI 50%-75%) of NODF-treated wounds healed compared with 34% (21%-47%) of SOC wounds. Posterior probabilities of superior healing with NODF exceeded 99% for most comparisons.
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.