A Scoping Review of the Use of Silver-impregnated Dressings for the Treatment of Chronic Wounds
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Topical silver agents and dressings are used to control infection and promote healing in chronic wounds, but reviews published from 2006 to 2011 found heterogeneous results regarding their effectiveness. A scoping review was conducted to examine the extent, range, and nature of research activity surrounding chronic wound care that employed silver-impregnated dressings; identify research gaps in the existing literature; and summarize the evidence to provide recommendations for future clinical studies. Ten (10) electronic databases and additional sources were screened from their inception to May 2016; search terms for the different databases included but were not limited to silver, chronic, complications, wound, ulcer, and sore. English-language articles that compared silver dressings with an alternate treatment in adults with chronic wounds and that reported clinical outcome measures were included. Of 222 full-text reviewed studies, 27 were included for qualitative analysis. Qualitative analysis was guided by key findings identified among the included studies that were analyzed in aggregate form where appropriate. In comparative analyses of the 26 studies that investigated wound healing, 15 revealed significantly positive wound healing outcomes with silver treatments versus 9 that did not; the remaining 2 failed to provide statistical values of significance. Of 17 studies that presented data on microbiology, 3 reported significant microbial load improvement for silver dressings, 9 noted nonsignificant findings, and 4 provided no statistical values. Pain, adverse events, and treatment cost were included in 5, 7, and 3 studies, respectively, with heterogeneous findings. The heterogeneous evidence regarding the impact of silver dressings on clinical outcomes may be related to differences in the silver treatments themselves, heterogeneous intervention strategies, study designs, outcomes, and measures. Well-designed clinical studies with multiple outcome parameters are necessary to determine the optimal type and use of silver-dressings in 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 | 0.018 | 0.064 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.030 | 0.029 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".