In one of my roles as a translational scientist, I help to facilitate overcoming the gap between bench science and clinical research. In that work, I have observed a lack of standardization in the preclinical evaluation of wound dressings. If there is inconsistency, variation, bias, or an outdated approach to these protocols, it only creates numerous challenges for clinicians, industry, and ultimately, patients. Thus, in my experience, unifying the approach to performance assessment of these dressings can only help to improve real-world clinical practice. Literature and news sources in the space agree, contending that standardization is imperative, warranting further attention.^1,2

Standardization in wound dressing evaluation is crucial for enhancing patient access to the most clinically appropriate wound dressings at the most affordable price. A standardized set of evaluation criteria would complement clinical evidence gathered in real-world settings, providing a more comprehensive understanding of product effectiveness. With this, clinicians would be better able to accurately and reliably compare product choices to one another.

• Translational Relevance: While laboratory work inherently operates under significant constraints, standardization would work to ensure that preclinical testing better reflects real-world clinical situations. In my work, this bidirectional feedback loop between laboratory and clinical outcomes is essential for true translational impact.
• Informed Clinical Decisions: Clinicians desperately need clear, relevant data to support evidence-based choices. By connecting robust laboratory data to meaningful clinical findings—such as those related to medical adhesive-related skin injury, dermatitis, pressure injury prevention, and dressing failure—standardization would provide clinicians with a vital additional layer of support in their decision-making processes.
• Streamlined Industry Innovation: A unified framework for research and development, aligned with pressing clinical needs, I feel, would also significantly benefit the wound care industry. This would foster more targeted innovation and efficient product development.
• Improved Health System Navigation: In increasingly bureaucratic and complex health systems, standardized evaluation criteria would aid value analysis teams (VATs) in vetting new products and formulary replacements, facilitating more efficient and evidence-based procurement.

Ultimately, the focus must remain on the patient. 

By establishing and adhering to rigorous testing standards, we can collectively work towards the unified human goal of reducing suffering, while simultaneously working towards ensuring resource and system-conscious approaches to wound care. Standardization is not merely a technical detail; it is a critical step towards improving patient outcomes and optimizing healthcare resources, in this case, with wound dressings.

References

1.     Nygren E, Malone M, Gefen A. Laboratory evaluations of wound dressings: key advances to reflect clinical reality. Int Wound J. 2025;22(Suppl 1):e70333. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/iwj.70333

2.     Langbord SG, Ghandi A, Schwartz R, et al. Enhancing patient care through advanced wound dressing standards: a Wound Care Collaborative Community (WCCC) initiative. Wounds. Published April 14, 2025. Accessed June 8, 2025. https://www.hmpgloballearningnetwork.com/site/wounds/enhancing-patient-…