The silver‐releasing foam dressing, Contreet Foam, promotes faster healing of critically colonised venous leg ulcers: a randomised, controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study compared the effect of a sustained silver-release foam dressing (Contreet Foam) with a foam dressing (Allevyn Hydrocellular) without added silver in critically colonised venous leg ulcers with delayed healing. The study was a multicentre, open, randomised, controlled study lasting for 4 weeks. Ulcer area and healing were assessed weekly. Odour, maceration, absorption capacity and leakage were evaluated at dressing changes. All adverse events were recorded. One hundred and twenty-nine patients were included (Contreet Foam: 65, Allevyn Hydrocellular: 64). The two groups were comparable in all respects. After 4 weeks, there was a significantly greater reduction in ulcer area in the Contreet Foam group (45%) than in the Allevyn Hydrocellular group (25%). After 1 and 4 weeks, odour was present in significantly less of the ulcers in the Contreet Foam group (17% and 19%, respectively) compared with the Allevyn Hydrocellular group (47% and 39%, respectively) and at the final visit there were significantly fewer leakages in the Contreet Foam group (19%) compared with the Allevyn Hydrocellular group (49%). Also, less maceration was observed after 1 and 4 weeks in the Contreet Foam group (34% and 37%, respectively) compared with the Allevyn Hydrocellular group (55% and 48%, respectively). The occurrence and cause of adverse events were equally distributed between the study groups. The present study provides evidence of the superior performance of the silver-releasing dressing, Contreet Foam, compared with a traditional moist foam wound healing dressing in the treatment of critically colonised, chronic venous leg ulcers. The results of this randomised, controlled study suggest an important role of sustained silver-releasing dressings in the treatment of critically colonised chronic wounds.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".