Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 434

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 13 of the 13 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Comparative evaluation of silver‐containing antimicrobial dressings and drugs

Open access
Castellano, Joseph J, Shafii, Susan M, Ko, Francis, Donate, Guillermo, Wright, Terry E, Mannari, Rudolph J, Payne, Wyatt G, Smith, David J, Robson, Martin C·2007·International Wound Journal

Abstract

Wound dressings containing silver as antimicrobial agents are available in various forms and formulations; however, little is understood concerning their comparative efficacy as antimicrobial agents. Eight commercially available silver‐containing dressings, Acticoat® 7, Acticoat® Moisture Control, Acticoat® Absorbent, Silvercel™, Aquacel® Ag, Contreet® F, Urgotol® SSD and Actisorb®, were tested to determine their comparative antimicrobial effectiveness in vitro and compared against three commercially available topical antimicrobial creams, a non treatment control, and a topical silver‐containing antimicrobial gel, Silvasorb®. Zone of inhibition and quantitative testing was performed by standard methods using Escherichia coli, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Streptococcus faecalis and Staphylococcus aureus. Results showed all silver dressings and topical antimicrobials displayed antimicrobial activity. Silver‐containing dressings with the highest concentrations of silver exhibited the strongest bacterial inhibitive properties. Concreet® F and the Acticoat® dressings tended to have greater antimicrobial activity than did the others. Topical antimicrobial creams, including silver sulfadiazine, Sulfamylon and gentamicin sulfate, and the topical antimicrobial gel Silvasorb® exhibited superior bacterial inhibition and bactericidal properties, essentially eliminating all bacterial growth at 24 hours. Silver‐containing dressings are likely to provide a barrier to and treatment for infection; however, their bactericidal and bacteriostatic properties are inferior to commonly used topical antimicrobial agents.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1742-481x.2007.00316.x

Cites

13 of 13 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 13 references

Cited by

See all 434

Metadata

Authors
Castellano, J. J., Shafii, S. M., Ko, F., Donate, G., Wright, T. E., Mannari, R. J., Payne, W. G., Smith, D. J., & Robson, M. C.
Venue
International Wound Journal
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2007-06
Volume
4
Issue
2
Pages
114-122
ISSN
  • 1742-4801 (ISSN-L)
  • 1742-481X
OpenAlex
W2084016414
Cited by
434
References
13
FWCI
9.88
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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: Comparative evaluation of silver‐containing antimicrobial dressings and drugs. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1742-481x.2007.00316.x
The paper
Castellano, J. J., Shafii, S. M., Ko, F., Donate, G., Wright, T. E., Mannari, R. J., Payne, W. G., Smith, D. J., & Robson, M. C. (2007). Comparative evaluation of silver‐containing antimicrobial dressings and drugs. International Wound Journal. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1742-481x.2007.00316.x

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.