A Multifunctional Polyethylene Glycol Triethoxysilane… Dressing Study – A Clinician- Scientist’s Detailed Perspective Linda Benskin 1, 2 * 1 Independent Researcher for Remote and Conflict Areas of Tropical Developing Countries; lindabenskin@utexas.edu 2 Ferris Mfg. Corp.; lindabenskin@utexas.edu * Correspondence: lindabenskin@utexas.edu Abstract: Chen, et al., conducted a series of preliminary in vitro and rodent model tests to compare two modified polyurethane-based wound dressings (PUE and PUESi) intended for use in chronic wounds with a negative control (gauze) and a positive control (PolyMem). Future studies may find that one or both of these two new dressings are beneficial to patients. However, the results of this first study cannot be relied upon. The authors seemed unfamiliar with the science of wound healing and with PolyMem wound dressings. This helps explain why the study design lead to many of their tests not being translatable to real-world settings. In addition, the interpretation of some of the test results is questionable. 1. Introduction Wound dressing technology was featured in a 2023 article by Chen, et al.[1]It is admirable that these investigators/manufacturers were bold enough to compare their new dressing technology (PUE and PUESi) to PolyMem, which is increasingly being seen as the gold standard for wound care, rather than only comparing it to gauze.[1–5] However, the authors seem not to have researched this comparator product (PolyMem) and instead, they stated that they “speculated” about its attributes. Consequently, they used PolyMem inappropriately, which led to results that will not translate into real-world applications.[1,6] In addition, Chen, et al., applied an overly simplified model of diabetic wound healing. Based upon a correlational study in which inflammation and bacterial infection were associated with increased exudate, they created a dressing with high absorption activity and very high evaporation rates (MVTR) in order to control inflammation and infection in wounds.[1] Although they at one point acknowledge that exudate is often beneficial, the new dressings are designed to remove as much exudate as possible.[1] In fact, exudate is necessary for wound healing, and excess exudate is a symptom, rather than a cause, of inflammation and infection.[7–11] Although it is true that bacteria thrive in moisture, human immune cells, fibroblasts, endothelial cells, and granulocytes require a moist environment as well.[2–8] In 1962, Winter sparked a “dressings revolution” by demonstrating that wounds healed twice as fast when they were kept sufficiently moist.[2,9–11] Hinman and Maibach confirmed these results in human volunteers in 1963.[12] In a 1990 review of 115 studies, Hutchinson and McGucken found that, regardless of wound type, infection rates were dramatically reduced when occlusive rather than non-occlusive dressings were used, eliminating this concern about moist wound management.[2] A rigorously designed survey found that although the general public continues to believe that wounds should be kept