ArticleIndian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine2026
Evaluation of the Potential Efficacy of Bacteriophage Therapy for the Management of Pressure Ulcers and Its Comparison to Conventional Therapy: A Randomized Controlled Trial.
Article in Indian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Bacteriophages: A Long-forgotten Past, or Hope for the Future?Indian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine · 2026Article
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
Background and aims: Pressure ulcers (PUs) are common in physical trauma patients who require prolonged stays in the intensive care unit (ICU). Despite standard preventive and therapeutic measures, healing is often a slow process. Conventional systemic antibiotics offer limited therapeutic benefits due to inadequate tissue penetration and the associated risk of driving antimicrobial resistance. Bacteriophage therapy, with its ability to target resistant and biofilm-associated bacteria, offers a potential "alternative." We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of topical bacteriophage therapy for the management of PUs in critically ill ICU patients and its comparison to conventional therapy. Patients and methods: This prospective, randomized, double-blind controlled trial was conducted in the ICU of a tertiary care center between April 2024 and May 2025. Seventy-six adult patients with grade II-IV PUs were screened, and 68 were enrolled (34 in each group). Group C received conventional therapy, while group B received conventional plus customized topical bacteriophage therapy. Healing was assessed using the Pressure Ulcer Scale for Healing (PUSH) tool; tissue type, exudate amount, and ulcer dimensions were assessed at baseline and on days 5, 7, 14, 21, and 28. The primary objective was to evaluate the efficacy of bacteriophage therapy for the management of PUs. The secondary objective was to observe the safety profile of bacteriophage therapy. Results: Both groups demonstrated healing over time, but group B demonstrated significantly greater improvement as compared to group C. The reduction in the mean PUSH score was higher in group B ( Conclusion: Topical bacteriophage therapy is a safe and effective adjunct to conventional care in the management of PUs among ICU patients. How to cite this article: Meena K, Meena RK, Kumari S, Thambidurai P, Nath G. Evaluation of the Potential Efficacy of Bacteriophage Therapy for the Management of Pressure Ulcers and Its Comparison to Conventional Therapy: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Indian J Crit Care Med 2026;30(3):196-203.
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.