A comparative study evaluating the clinical efficacy of skin tapes versus silicone gel for the treatment of posttrauma scar in the rabbit model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Skin tape and silicone gel are two common over-the-counter preparations used to enhance the cosmesis of keloids and hypertrophic scars of posttrauma wounds. This animal study was performed to determine the clinical efficacy of skin tape versus silicone gel in subjects with scars. Materials and Methods: Three New Zealand rabbits that received total 12 incision wounds which two incision wounds on one ear side and subsequent primary suturing were studied. Stitches were removed after 1 week. Silicone gel was applied right upper side of the rabbit's ear directly on surgical incision wounds, and skin tapes were also applied left upper side of the rabbit's ear directly on another surgical incision wounds after 1 week of surgery. The lower incisions in both ears were covered with sterilized gauze and served as controls. We compared two experimental groups at binaural with using Vancouver Scar Scale, Manchester Scar Scale, and The Stony Brook Scar Evaluation Scale. These are widely used in clinical practice and research to document change in scar appearance. Results: We describe a rabbit model for incisional wounds and scarring outcome measures. The results of scar measuring devices demonstrated that skin tape reduced scar formation as well as silicone gel. Conclusions: The results of cosmetic demonstrated that skin tape reduced scar formation as well as silicone gel. However, the economical and effective materials were the important subject that suffices for clinical requirement. The application of these scar prevention devices to reduce scar formation after surgical incision is worthy of future investigation. Moreover, skin tape may represent a low-cost alternative and low scar formation for closure of surgical incisions.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".