The Effect of <i>Hypericum perforatum</i> on the Wound Healing and Scar of Cesarean
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine the effects of Hypericum perforatum on cesarean wound healing and hypertrophic scar. DESIGN: This was a randomized, double-blind clinical trial study. SETTING: The study was conducted in Samen-Ol-Aemmeh (Pbuh) Hospital in Mashhad, Iran. SUBJECTS: The subjects included 144 women with surgical childbirth who had eligible criteria. INTERVENTION: The participants were randomly assigned to three groups. The treatment and placebo groups applied H. perforatum or placebo ointment 3 times a day for 16 days based on consecutive coded ointments. The control group remained without any intervention postoperatively. ASSESSMENT: Wound healing was assessed on the 10th day postcesarean using the REEDA scale (REEDA stands for redness, edema, ecchymosis, discharge, and approximation), which had criteria including redness, edema, ecchymosis, discharge, and approximation. On the 40th day, the degree of scarring was assessed using the Vancouver scar scale including pigmentation, height, pliability, and vascularity. The subjects were also asked some questions about pain by using the Visual Analogue Scale and pruritus of scar. RESULTS: The mean age of all the study subjects was 23.50 +/- 4.03 and mean parity was 1.23 +/- 0.48. There were significant differences in wound healing on the 10th day (p < 0.005) and scar formation on the 40th day postpartum (p < 0.0001) between treatment group with placebo and control groups. However, the placebo group had no differences in wound healing (p = 0.93) and scar formation (p = 0.11) with the control group. In addition, significantly lower pain and pruritus were reported by the treatment group compared with the placebo and control groups on the 40th day postpartum. CONCLUSIONS: Topical application of H. perforatum is safe and can facilitate cesarean wound healing and minimize formation of scar and its pain and pruritus.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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".