ArticleMedical devices (Auckland, N.Z.)2026
A Silver-Zeolite Spray Powder for Pressure Ulcers and Minor Burns: Real-World Evidence from Primary Care.
Article in Medical devices (Auckland, N.Z.), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05649332 (Open, Non-comparative, Multicentre, Interventional Post-market Clinical Follow-up), which is not on this 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.
Open, Non-comparative, Multicentre, Interventional Post-market Clinical Follow-up (PMCF) Study to Evaluate the Performance and Safety of the Medical Device Argogen® (adsorbing Spray Powder for Exudates with Silver Ions) in the Treatment of Pressure Ulcers and Minor (first and Second Degree) Burn Wounds
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
Background: Pressure ulcers and minor burns are commonly managed in primary care. The tested device is an adsorbing spray powder combining ionic silver (2.5%) and micronized zeolite (97.5%), designed to provide exudate control and antimicrobial activity in a topical formulation. Materials and Methods: In this multicenter, open-label, single-arm post-market clinical follow-up (PMCF) study, adult outpatients with chronic stage II-III pressure ulcers (NPUAP) unhealed after ≥3 weeks of standard care, or with superficial/partial-thickness burns (<10% body surface area) within 48 hours of injury, received the tested product for 4 weeks. Co-primary endpoints were 4-week changes in PUSH (pressure ulcers) and Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS; burns) scores; secondary endpoints included pain (100-mm Visual Analog Scale), patient satisfaction, Investigator Global Assessment of Performance, and safety. Results: Fifty-eight patients were enrolled and 56 analyzed per-protocol (32 burns, 24 pressure ulcers); two discontinued for reasons unrelated to safety. At Week 4, 96.4% (54/56) showed meaningful improvement and none worsened. Mean VSS decreased from 5.22±2.78 to 1.31±1.49 in burns (p<0.001; bias-corrected d_avg=1.72), and mean PUSH decreased from 11.67±2.41 to 3.29±1.60 in pressure ulcers (p<0.001; bias-corrected d_avg=4.01), with 95.8% of pressure-ulcer patients achieving a ≥5-point reduction. VAS pain decreased from Week 2 in both subgroups (p<0.001). At Week 4, the Investigator considered 68.8% of burns and 29.2% of pressure ulcers healed. Patient satisfaction was high (75.0% very satisfied, 25.0% satisfied); no adverse events, device effects or deficiencies were reported. Conclusion: In this single-arm, real-world study, the tested device showed a favorable performance and safety signal in mild-to-moderate pressure ulcers and minor burns; given the non-comparative design, these findings do not establish equivalence or superiority to other silver-based dressings. Ease of use may support outpatient self-managed care; adequately powered randomized trials versus alternative silver-based dressings are warranted to confirm these findings. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT05649332.
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.