SynthesisWound repair and regeneration : official publication of the Wound Healing Society [and] the European Tissue Repair Society
In Vivo Wound Healing Effects of Antimicrobial Peptide-Based Dressings for S. aureus-Infected Wounds-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Wound repair and regeneration : official publication of the Wound Healing Society [and] the European Tissue Repair Society. 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The purpose of this systematic review was to determine whether the addition of antimicrobial peptides (AMPs) to dressing materials enhances their wound healing capabilities when applied to S. aureus-infected wounds in rodent models. The primary objective was not to derive definitive efficacy conclusions, but to systematically assess the quality, consistency, and translational readiness of existing in vivo evidence for AMP-based dressings in excisional wound models to inform future in vivo experimental design. The systematic review was performed according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Two authors independently completed the literature search using three electronic databases and two databases for grey literature. Studies were included if they met pre-established inclusion criteria. Rate of wound healing was considered as the primary outcome; the secondary outcome involved histological analyses of tissue samples of the wounds. Risk of bias was assessed using the SYRCLE risk of bias tool for animal studies and meta-analysis was performed with pooled data from three or more studies reporting the same outcome, employing a random effects model. By the final timepoint, the meta-analyses identified a significant increase in wound healing rate in both rats (mean difference = 2.79%, 95% CI [1.52%, 4.06%], p < 0.0001) and mice (mean difference = 32.30%, 95% CI [18.06%, 46.54%], p < 0.00001) exposed to AMP-based dressing materials compared to AMP-free carrier materials. The significantly improved wound healing rates provide promising evidence that these materials are suitable for promoting the wound healing of S. aureus-infected wounds that may be investigated further in clinical studies.
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.