The clinical and histological effects of Dermagraft® in the healing of chronic venous leg ulcers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Pilot study to assess the safety and effectiveness of Dermagraft® when used in conjunction with multi-layer compression bandage therapy (Profore™) compared with multilayer compression only in the treatment of chronic venous leg ulcers. Design: Open-label, prospective, multicentre, randomized, controlled clinical trial. Methods: Patients aged at least 18 years with leg ulceration of venous aetiology were screened for inclusion in the trial. Patients with arterial disease (ankle brachial pressure index <0.7) and causes of ulceration other than venous disease were excluded. Patients were randomized into four groups. Three active treatment groups received Dermagraft® in combination with compression bandaging, Profore™: Group 1, 12 pieces of Dermagraft (one per week for 12 weeks); Group 2, four pieces of Dermagraft (Weeks 0, 1, 4, 8); Group 3, one piece of Dermagraft (Week 0). The control group was treated with compression bandaging alone (Group 4). The study was not powered to detect statistical differences in healing rates. Adverse events were reported according to national guidelines. There was no statistical analysis of adverse event data. Results: In all 53 patients were randomized, of whom 47 completed the study per protocol. At 12 weeks complete healing of the ulcer, analysed by 'intention-to-treat' (ITT) was 15% using Profore alone, 7% using single application Dermagraft and Profore (Group 3), compared with 38% using multiple applications of Dermagraft and Profore (Groups 1 and 2). At study discontinuation, the median percentage reduction in wound area was 81.4% for Group 1, 88.6% for Group 2, 59.4% for Group 3 and 78.1% for Group 4. No major safety issues were identified during the course of the study. Conclusions: The results of the pilot study indicate that four pieces of Dermagraft are the optimal application frequency to take forward to further clinical trials. Further studies are required to confirm these data, and these should be powered to detect whether there are statistical differences in healing rates and safety between different regimens.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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".