The DOI matches its Crossref record; 49 of the 49 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Dressings for Acute and Chronic Wounds: A Systematic Review
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To critically review the literature on the efficacy of modern dressings in healing chronic and acute wounds by secondary intention. DATA SOURCES: Search of 3 databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Controlled Clinical Trials Register) from January 1990 to June 2006, completed by manual research, for articles in English and in French. STUDY SELECTION: The end points for selecting studies were the rate of complete healing, time to complete healing, rate of change in wound area, and general performance criteria (eg, pain, ease of use, avoidance of wound trauma on dressing removal, ability to absorb and contain exudates). Studies were selected by a single reviewer. Overall, 99 studies met the selection criteria (89 randomized controlled trials [RCTs], 3 meta-analyses [1 of which came from 1 of the selected systematic reviews], 7 systematic reviews, and 1 cost-effectiveness study). DATA EXTRACTION: The RCTs, meta-analyses, and cost-effectiveness studies were critically appraised by 2 reviewers to assess the clinical evidence level according to a modification of Sackett's 1989 criteria. Ninety-three articles were finally graded. DATA SYNTHESIS: We found no level A studies, 14 level B studies (11 RCTs and 3 meta-analyses), and 79 level C studies. Hydrocolloid dressings proved superior to saline gauze or paraffin gauze dressings for the complete healing of chronic wounds, and alginates were better than other modern dressings for debriding necrotic wounds. Hydrofiber and foam dressings, when compared with other traditional dressings or a silver-coated dressing, respectively, reduced time to healing of acute wounds. CONCLUSIONS: Our systematic review provided only weak levels of evidence on the clinical efficacy of modern dressings compared with saline or paraffin gauze in terms of healing, with the exception of hydrocolloids. There was no evidence that any of the modern dressings was better than another, or better than saline or paraffin gauze, in terms of general performance criteria. More wound care research providing level A evidence is needed.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Singer, A. J., & Clark, R. A. F. (1999) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm199909023411006 · Cited by 6,106
Moher, D., Schulz, K. F., & Altman, D. G. (2001) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(00)04337-3 · Cited by 5,373
Moher, D., Schulz, K. F., & Altman, D. G. (2001) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/1471-2288-1-2 · Cited by 2,755
WINTER, G. D. (1962) · Nature · doi:10.1038/193293a0 · Cited by 2,253
Rules of Evidence and Clinical Recommendations on the Use of Antithrombotic Agents
Sackett, D. L. (1989) · Chest · doi:10.1378/chest.95.2_supplement.2s · Cited by 1,368
Definitions and Guidelines for Assessment of Wounds and Evaluation of Healing
Lazarus, G. S. (1994) · Archives of Dermatology · doi:10.1001/archderm.1994.01690040093015 · Cited by 785
Effect of Air Exposure and Occlusion on Experimental Human Skin Wounds
HINMAN, C. D., & MAIBACH, H. (1963) · Nature · doi:10.1038/200377a0 · Cited by 711
Definitions and guidelines for assessment of wounds and evaluation of healing
Lazarus, G. S., Cooper, D. M., Knighton, D. R., Margolis, D. J., Percoraro, R. E., Rodeheaver, G., & Robson, M. C. (1994) · Wound Repair and Regeneration · doi:10.1046/j.1524-475x.1994.20305.x · Cited by 580
Apelqvist, J., Bakker, K., van Houtum, W. H., Nabuurs-Franssen, M. H., Schaper, N. C., & on behalf of the International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot (2000) · Diabetes/Metabolism Research and Reviews · doi:10.1002/1520-7560(200009/10)16:1+<::aid-dmrr113>3.0.co;2-s · Cited by 562
Chronic venous insufficiency and venous leg ulceration
Valencia, I. C., Falabella, A., Kirsner, R. S., & Eaglstein, W. H. (2001) · Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology · doi:10.1067/mjd.2001.111633 · Cited by 502
Cited by
Wound healing and treating wounds
Morton, L. M., & Phillips, T. J. (2016) · Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology · doi:10.1016/j.jaad.2015.08.068 · Cited by 475
Wound Dressings: Selecting the Most Appropriate Type
Broussard, K. C., & Powers, J. G. (2013) · American Journal of Clinical Dermatology · doi:10.1007/s40257-013-0046-4 · Cited by 310
Metadata
- Authors
- Chaby, G., Senet, P., Vaneau, M., Martel, P., Guillaume, J.-C., Meaume, S., Téot, L., Debure, C., Dompmartin, A., Bachelet, H., Carsin, H., Matz, V., Richard, J. L., Rochet, J. M., Sales-Aussias, N., Zagnoli, A., Denis, C., Guillot, B., & Chosidow, O.
- Venue
- Archives of Dermatology
- Publisher
- American Medical Association (AMA)
- Published
- 2007-10-01
- Volume
- 143
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 1297-304
- ISSN
- 0003-987X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1982384528
- Cited by
- 253
- References
- 49
- FWCI
- 15.75
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Dressings for Acute and Chronic Wounds: A Systematic Review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/archderm.143.10.1297
- The paper
- Chaby, G., Senet, P., Vaneau, M., Martel, P., Guillaume, J.-C., Meaume, S., Téot, L., Debure, C., Dompmartin, A., Bachelet, H., Carsin, H., Matz, V., Richard, J. L., Rochet, J. M., Sales-Aussias, N., Zagnoli, A., Denis, C., Guillot, B., & Chosidow, O. (2007). Dressings for Acute and Chronic Wounds: A Systematic Review. Archives of Dermatology. https://doi.org/10.1001/archderm.143.10.1297
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
