Comparing the Vancouver Scar Scale With the Cutometer in the Assessment of Donor Site Wounds Treated With Various Dressings in a Randomized Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cutaneous scarring observed in wounds is, to a significant degree, dependent upon the time it takes for the wounds to heal. Various topical dressings are proposed to influence healing time in donor sites. In this prospective randomized study, we examined the effect of Vaseline gauze (VD; Branolind, Paul Hartmann AG, Germany), Biobrane (BD; Bertek Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Morgantown, WV), an occlusive film dressing Barrier Flex (OD; Moelnlycke Health Care GmbH, Germany), and an equine collagen foil, Tissu Foil E (CD; Baxter, Heidelberg, Germany), on re-epithelialization and scarring in standardized donor site wounds. At 6 months after surgery, donor site scars and normal uninjured mirror sided skin were evaluated in 33 patients using both the Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS) and the cutometer SEM 575 (Courage and Khazaka). The median healing time for OD was 14 days, BD 16 days, CD 19 days, and VD 19 days. The single parameter pliability of the VSS was not significantly different from uninjured skin when all donor site scars were pooled. No difference was found between the four groups. Viscoelastic analysis of all pooled patient data showed a significant difference for Uf (total deformation), Ua (total recovery), Ur (immediate retraction), Ue (immediate distension), Ur/Ue, and Ur/Uf, indicating that donor sites significantly differed from normal uninjured skin. No significant correlation between objective viscoelastic measurements and the subjective pliability assessment of the VSS was found. Viscoelastic differences were greatest in the VD and BD groups. Viscolelastic differences did not significantly correlate with healing time. Various wound dressings had minimal yet significant influence on healing time and scarring. In contrast to the VSS, viscoelastic measurements of skin pliability can objectify scarring when few differences are anticipated.
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 | 0.013 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".