Trial reportInternational wound journal2026
Comparative Effectiveness of Fluid Absorption Between Superabsorbent and Foam Dressings in Split-Thickness Skin-Graft Donor Sites: A Randomized Controlled Trial.
Trial report 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Acute wounds with high exudate output, such as split-thickness skin-graft donor sites, require dressings that effectively manage fluid, reduce pain, and support timely epithelialization. Foam dressings are widely used, but superabsorbent materials may provide advantages in exudate handling. This study compared the absorption performance, wound healing, and pain outcomes of foam versus superabsorbent dressings in donor-site wounds. Thirty patients undergoing split-thickness skin grafting were enrolled, with no exclusions or loss to follow-up. Each donor site was divided into two equal zones, with one receiving a foam dressing and the other a superabsorbent dressing according to randomized allocation. Data were collected using coded identifiers. Clinical outcomes, including absorption capacity, wound epithelialization, pain scores, and complications, were evaluated at 3-day intervals through postoperative day 15. Experimental testing showed that a 10 × 10 cm foam dressing weighed 7.5 g and absorbed 75 mL of saline, whereas the superabsorbent dressing weighed 5.5 g and absorbed 93 mL. Clinically, absorption power was significantly higher with the superabsorbent dressing on day 3 (104.09 vs. 71.87 mg/cm
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.