'References'

1. Mölnlycke Health Care. Determination of antimicrobial activity of Mepilex Ag against a broad range of wound pathogens using corrected zone of inhibition method. Report no. 20051215-007. 2005. Data on file.
2. Wounds International. International consensus. Appropriate use of silver dressings in wounds. An expert working group consensus. London, UK: Wounds Int; 2012 [cited 14 Sep 2017]. URL: http://www.woundsinternational.com/media/issues/567/files/content_10381.pdf.
3. White R. A multinational survey of the assessment of pain when removing dressings. Wounds UK. 4 (1). 2008.
4. Woo, K. & Bergström, C. An Open Randomised Cross-over Investigation Assessing Perceived Pain at Dressing Change Comparing A Soft Silicone Dressing, Mepilex® Border, with a Adhesive hydrocellular polyurethane dressing, Allevyn® Adhesive in Patients with chronic ulcer (Clinical Investigation Report (MXB408, Part A, Mölnlycke Health Care), 2007).
5. Johnstone A, et al. Innovations in the reduction of pressure ulceration and pain in critical care. Wounds UK. 2013;9(3):76-80
6. Viamontes L, et al. Evaluation study of the properties of two adhesive foam dressings. Br J Nurs. 2003;12(11 Supplement): S43-44, S46-49.
7. Bateman, S. Principles of preventative foot care. Br J Community Nurs. 2014;(Supplement):S32-S38.
8. Gee Kee EL, et al. Randomized controlled trial of three burns dressings for partial thickness burns in children. Burns. 2015;41(5):946-955.
9. Gee Kee EL et al. Cost-effectiveness of silver dressings for paediatric partial thickness burns: An economic evaluation from a randomized controlled trial. Burns 2017, 43(4):724-732.
10. Silverstein P, et al. An open, parallel, randomized, comparative, multicenter study to evaluate the cost-effectiveness, performance, tolerance, and safety of a silver-containing soft silicone foam dressing (intervention) vs silver sulfadiazine cream. J Burn Care Res. 2011;32(6):617-626.