Effects of Enhanced Patient Education on Compliance With Silicone Gel Sheeting and Burn Scar Outcome: A Randomized Prospective Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to determine whether enhanced patient education increases compliance with silicone gel sheeting (SGS) on hypertrophic (HT) scars and to determine whether this results in any improvement in scar outcome. Outpatients with a HT burn scar were randomized to either a conventional education group (CEG), which received routine instruction on the use of SGS or to an enhanced education Group (EEG), which also received routine instruction, along with a detailed 5-page handout and a 26-minute videotape. The CEG (n = 12, 67% male, age 38 +/- 10 years) and the EEG (n = 13, 77% male, age 47 +/- 10 years) were followed monthly for 6 months. Subjects in the EEG wore SGS for 21.8 +/- 3.0 hr/day compared with only 10.1 +/- 7.5 hr/day of use in the CEG (P <.001). Scars in the EEG had significantly better Vancouver Scar Scale ratings for pigmentation (P =.02), height (P =.03), and pliability (P =.02) by 6 months. Patients in the EEG had significantly better subjective ratings for the parameters of scar itch (P =.01), color (P =.02), hardness (P =.01), and elevation (P =.01). Finally, scars in the EEG had significantly better ratings for border height (P =.002) and thickness (P =.01) at 6 months based on evaluation of digital photographs. Detailed multimedia patient education improves compliance with SGS and results in a better scar outcome.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".