Evaluation of a self-adherent soft silicone dressing for the treatment of hypertrophic postoperative scars
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The primary objective was to compare the efficacy of a self-adherent soft silicone dressing (Mepiform) with 'left-alone' management of hypertrophic scars using theVancouver Scar Scale. Secondary objectives were to follow photographs of the scars, patients' opinions of the scars, and doctors' and patients' assessments of the overall dressing performance, safety and tolerance. METHOD: An exploratory open randomised controlled clinical investigation was undertaken on 11 female patients aged 21-43 years with postoperative scars (nine following breast surgery, two following lower abdominal-glutealplasty). Treatment was initiated between two weeks and two months (mean 4.7 weeks) after surgery. Ten patients completed the 12-month investigation; one patient in the treatment group discontinued for personal reasons. RESULTS: All parameters in the Vancouver Scar Scale improved in both groups, although patients treated with the soft silicone dressing showed greater and more rapid improvements compared with the non-treated patients, while their assessments of the condition of the scar were more favourable. Medical staff rated the overall dressing performance as 'very good' or'good'. One adverse event was reported--local skin irritation at the site of the scar. CONCLUSION: The results suggest that patients treated with the soft silicone dressing experienced greater and more rapid improvements compared with non-treated patients. These results concur with those of previous studies. The fact that Mepiform is self-adhesive and causes limited damage to the stratum corneum on removal gives it an added value compared with non-adhesive silicone gel dressings.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".