No Efficacy for Silicone Gel Sheeting in Prevention of Abnormal Scar Formation in Children with Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Placement of a totally implantable venous access device in children with cancer often leads to hypertrophic scars after its removal. This study investigates whether the use of silicone gel sheets has a beneficial effect on scar outcome in children with cancer. METHODS: In a three-arm randomized controlled trial, the effects of use of silicone gel sheets for 2 and 6 months were assessed and compared with no intervention in children with cancer after removal of the totally implantable venous access device. Silicone gel sheets were first administered 14 days after surgery. The 1-year follow-up included measurements at seven time points. Next to scar size assessment, the modified Vancouver Scar Scale was used to assess scar outcome. RESULTS: Thirty-six children participated. For hypertrophy, no significant differences were found between the two intervention groups and the control group. However, at 1-year follow-up, the 2-month application group showed significantly smaller scars compared with the group receiving silicone gel sheet treatment for 6 months (p = 0.04), but not when compared with the control group (p = 0.22). Longitudinal multilevel analyses could not confirm these findings and showed no significant intervention effects on both outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides no strong evidence to support the use of silicone gel sheets after totally implantable venous access device removal in children with cancer. There seems to be a small benefit for scar width with application for 2 months. However, for hypertrophy, the scar outcome shows no significant difference between the control group and the 2-month and 6-month treatment groups.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".