The Effectiveness of Topical Polyhexamethylene Biguanide (PHMB) Agents for the Treatment of Chronic Wounds: A Systematic Review.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: This is the first systematic review to explore the evidence on PHMB and determine how effective this topical agent is for the treatment of chronic wounds. MATERIALS AND METHODS: PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, the Cochrane library, and Scopus were searched for relevant articles published from 1946 to February 3, 2014, with no restrictions on publication status. ProQuest was searched for relevant dissertations, editorials, and conference abstracts. Non-indexed journals were searched and companies that manufacture wound care materials containing PHMB were contacted for unpublished data. Only randomized controlled trials available in English were included. Bias was assessed using the CONSORT document for all included studies. After inclusion and exclusion criteria were determined, four reviewers (ET, SK, SG, RD) independently reviewed each title and abstract of the literature search results to determine whether the paper should be included for this review. When disagreements on study inclusion emerged, reviewers resolved them through discussion. RESULTS: Of the 1,725 articles identified in the search, 6 met inclusion criteria. Four studies reported wound healing. Two of these studies evaluated changes in wound surface area and the other two evaluated wound bed evolution with variable results. In five studies, participants randomly assigned to PHMB topical agents showed significant improvement in bacterial control compared to control groups. Five studies reported pain reduction from the use of PHMB agents. DISCUSSION: There were a small number of eligible studies found, but the interventions, outcome measures, and outcome reporting varied greatly, making meta-analysis impossible. PHMB agents were shown to promote healing and reduce pain more effectively than control treatments. CONCLUSION: The existing evidence shows that topical PHMB may promote healing of chronic stalled wounds, reduce bacterial burden, eliminate methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), and alleviate wound-related pain.
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 | 0.018 | 0.058 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".