A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Comparing test methods for moisture-vapor transmission rate (MVTR) for vascular access transparent semipermeable dressings. | LitMetric

AI Article Synopsis

  • Catheter insertion sites are typically covered with transparent film dressings that protect against contaminants and allow for site observation, while new high moisture vapor transmission rate (MVTR) dressings are marketed as superior due to their ability to reduce moisture and infection risk.
  • Different methods exist for measuring MVTR; this study utilized two standard testing methods (upright and inverted) to compare seven commercially available IV dressings’ effectiveness.
  • Results revealed a wide range of MVTR values depending on the testing method used, indicating significant differences in how dressings perform under various conditions, with the upright method being recommended for assessing IV dressings due to better reflecting their real-world use.

Article Abstract

Background: Catheter insertion sites are commonly covered by transparent film dressings, offering protection of the insertion site from external contaminants and securement of the catheter while allowing site observation through a clear window. Currently, there is considerable focus on creating IV film dressings with ever-increasing moisture vapor transmission rates (MVTR) to prevent the accumulation of moisture under the film and reduce the risk of infection. These increasingly high MVTR IV dressings are often promoted as superior to IV dressings with lesser MVTR values.

Methods: Since there are different methods to determine MVTR, we chose to test a series of commercially available dressings with two standard methods to compare the results and better understand the information provided by this measurement. We used European Standard EN 13726 to test the MVTR of seven different IV dressings with two different methods (upright and inverted).

Results: We measured a range of MVTR values from 773 to 2838 g/m/day for the upright method and from 845 to 30,530 g/m/day for the inverted method for the seven IV dressings tested. Three dressings showed statistically different MVTR values with the two test methods.

Conclusions: The MVTR test method (upright or inverted) used and considered for IV dressing product selection matters because the results obtained can be very different. We suggest that the upright method is better suited for IV dressings because they are not in constant contact with fluid. We conclude that the inverted method alone is not adequate to compare IV dressings.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10631281PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/11297298211050485DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

dressings
11
mvtr
9
film dressings
8
mvtr dressings
8
mvtr values
8
upright method
8
inverted method
8
method
5
comparing test
4
methods
4

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!