ReviewGels (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Silk-Derived Antibacterial Hydrogels: Material Identity, Mechanistic Evidence, and Translation.
Review in Gels (Basel, Switzerland), 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Silk fibroin (SF)- and silk sericin (SS)-based antibacterial hydrogels are increasingly engineered as local antimicrobial platforms, yet cross-study interpretation is limited by inconsistent material reporting and by conflation of bacterial inhibition with tissue repair. We performed a structured evidence-mapping and critical synthesis of a frozen 2020-July 2026 corpus of 94 references. The original 46-record core map was re-audited at the original-article level: 43 full-text-verified, non-retracted primary studies were retained for detailed evidence grading, 2 records available only at abstract/database level were retained descriptively but not graded, and 1 subsequently retracted study was excluded from quantitative synthesis. Among the 43 graded studies, metal-ion/nanozyme/catalytic systems were most common (12/43, 27.9%), followed by release-mediated (11/43, 25.6%), multimodal (9/43, 20.9%), contact-active/anti-adhesive (6/43, 14.0%), and light-responsive systems (5/43, 11.6%). Sixteen studies (37.2%) used deliberately infected animal models, whereas only 4 (9.3%) reached a biofilm or adherent-bacteria-level endpoint in the graded map. Biological claim ceilings (C0-C5) are assessed independently from translation gates spanning material identity, reproducibility, mechanism, host safety, sterilization/storage, resistance, long-term fate, and deployment. Across mechanisms, SF and SS most often function as structural, interfacial, or transport-regulating matrices; direct silk-dependent bactericidal causality remains uncommon. The central translational deficit is failure to quantitatively link silk molecular identity and network architecture to antimicrobial exposure, bacterial killing, host selectivity, and long-term material fate.
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.