ArticleInternational wound journal2026
A Prospective Clinical Study to Confirm the Safety and Performance of a Canister-Based Single-Use Negative Pressure Wound Therapy System in Low-to-Moderately Exuding Chronic Wounds.
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
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This clinical investigation was undertaken to confirm the safety and performance of a canister-based single-use negative pressure wound therapy system when used as intended in the management of low-to-moderately exuding chronic wounds, including diabetes-related foot ulcers (n = 34), venous leg ulcers (n = 34), and pressure ulcers (n = 36) for up to 28 days. Using a prospective non-comparative, multi-centre design, device performance was evaluated at 14 sites in seven European countries. The study covered a broad spectrum of wounds, reflecting the inclusion of both inpatients (67.7%) and outpatients (32.3%). The primary outcome measure was wound progress. Overall, wounds were deemed improved since the previous clinic visit in 76.3% of visits and reductions in both absolute and relative wound size were noted over the study period. The device was considered effective and easy to apply by investigators, with no unexpected safety concerns noted.
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.