ReviewPolymers2025
Substance-Based Medical Device in Wound Care: Bridging Regulatory Clarity and Therapeutic Innovation.
Review in Polymers, 2025. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Substance-based medical devices (SBMDs) are increasingly used in wound care due to their favorable safety profile, physicochemical mechanisms of action, and therapeutic effectiveness. These products often incorporate biopolymers such as hyaluronic acid or chitosan, alone or in combination with antimicrobial agents like silver nanoparticles (AgNPs) or silver sulfadiazine (SSD), offering hydration, tissue protection, and control of microbial burden in both acute and chronic wounds. Despite their widespread clinical use, the regulatory classification of SBMDs under Regulation (EU) 2017/745 (MDR) remains one of the most challenging and debated areas within the current European framework. This review analyzes the scientific and regulatory context of topical SBMDs, with particular emphasis on borderline products that share similarities with medicinal products in terms of formulation, composition, or claimed effects. The discussion focuses on the application of MDR Annex VIII, specifically Rule 21 for substance-based devices and Rule 14 for devices incorporating medicinal substances with ancillary action, together with interpretative guidance provided by MDCG 2022-5 Rev.1 and the Association of the European Self-Care Industry (AESGP) Position Paper. Particular attention is given to the identification of the critical role of the primary mode of action (MoA) as the determining criterion for regulatory qualification, especially for products containing antimicrobial substances. Through selected examples and case analyses, the review highlights inconsistencies in classification across Member States and underscores the need for a more harmonized, evidence-based, and proportionate regulatory approach. Overall, SBMDs challenge traditional regulatory boundaries and call for a framework capable of accommodating complex, multifunctional products while ensuring patient safety and regulatory coherence.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.