The DOI matches its Crossref record.
A comparison of the antimicrobial effects of four silver-containing dressings on three organisms
Abstract
Objective: To compare the antimicrobial activity of four silver-containing dressings: Acticoat (Smith and Nephew), Actisorb Silver 220 (Johnson and Johnson), Avance (SSL International) and Contreet-H (Coloplast). Method: The dressings were tested against three micro-organisms: a Gram-positive bacterium, Staphylococcus aureus; a Gram-negative organism, Escherichia coli; and a yeast, Candida albicans, using three different techniques. Each dressing also had its silver content analysed. Results: Acticoat is likely to produce the most rapid antimicrobial effect in vitro because of the rapid release of relatively large concentrations of highly active silver ions. Contreet-H has broadly similar antimicrobial activity to Acticoat, but has a slower onset of action. Actisorb Silver 220 appears to offer less prospect of killing bacteria within the wound itself, but the dressing is capable of removing micro-organisms from wound exudate and sequestering them until they are inactivated by the silver within the charcoal fibres. Little convincing evidence for any antimicrobial activity of Avance was found. Conclusion: Although caution must always be exercised when extrapolating the results of laboratory-based studies to the clinical situation, potentially important differences were detected in the antimicrobial activity of the four products examined. It is also possible that the silver ions released by the dressings may have effects on wound healing that are unrelated to their antimicrobial activity. Further work is needed to address this issue. Declaration of interest: This study was supported by Smith and Nephew.
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
Cited by
Chopra, I. (2007) · Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy · doi:10.1093/jac/dkm006 · Cited by 722
Fonder, M. A., Lazarus, G. S., Cowan, D. A., Aronson-Cook, B., Kohli, A. R., & Mamelak, A. J. (2008) · Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology · doi:10.1016/j.jaad.2007.08.048 · Cited by 665
Antimicrobial effect of surgical masks coated with nanoparticles
Li, Y., Leung, P., Yao, L., Song, Q. W., & Newton, E. (2006) · Journal of Hospital Infection · doi:10.1016/j.jhin.2005.04.015 · Cited by 572
Antimicrobial activities of silver dressings: an in vitro comparison
Ip, M., Lui, S. L., Poon, V. K. M., Lung, I., & Burd, A. (2006) · Journal of Medical Microbiology · doi:10.1099/jmm.0.46124-0 · Cited by 559
Comparative evaluation of silver‐containing antimicrobial dressings and drugs
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) · International Wound Journal · doi:10.1111/j.1742-481x.2007.00316.x · Cited by 434
Metadata
- Authors
- Thomas, S., & McCubbin, P.
- Venue
- Journal of Wound Care
- Publisher
- Mark Allen Group
- Published
- 2003-03
- Volume
- 12
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 101-107
- ISSN
- 0969-0700 (ISSN-L)
- 2052-2916
- OpenAlex
- W2036564087
- Cited by
- 197
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 11.64
- 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: A comparison of the antimicrobial effects of four silver-containing dressings on three organisms. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.12968/jowc.2003.12.3.26477
- The paper
- Thomas, S., & McCubbin, P. (2003). A comparison of the antimicrobial effects of four silver-containing dressings on three organisms. Journal of Wound Care. https://doi.org/10.12968/jowc.2003.12.3.26477
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.