ArticleFrontiers in medicine2026
A comparison of the effects of Temporin atomizable mucosal liquid dressing vs. routine skin care on wound healing in critically ill patients: a retrospective analysis.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study aimed to compare the effects of Temporin atomizable mucosal liquid dressing vs. routine skin care on healing outcomes (healing rate and healing time) in critically ill patients with existing Stage 2 pressure injuries or oral injuries. Methods: This retrospective analysis included 135 critically ill patients admitted between November 2024 and July 2025, allocated to a Temporin group ( Results: After 14 days of intervention, the skin injury healing rate in the Temporin group (97.0%) was significantly higher than that in the control group (69.1%) (adjusted risk ratio = 1.40, 95% CI: 1.18-1.66; Conclusion: The use of Temporin atomizable mucosal liquid dressing was associated with higher healing rates and shorter healing times in critically ill patients. These findings suggest a promising alternative to traditional nursing methods, although further prospective validation is warranted.
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.