The effectiveness of pressure therapy (15–25 mmHg) for hypertrophic burn scars: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although pressure therapy (PT) represents the standard care for prevention and treatment of hypertrophic scar (HS) from burns, its practice is largely based on empirical evidence and its effectiveness remains controversial. To clarify the effect of PT (15-25 mmHg) for HS, we performed the systematic review and meta-analysis. Several electronic databases were screened to identify related randomized controlled trials (RCTs). 12 RCTs involving 710 patients with 761 HS resulting from burn injuries were included. Compared with non/low-PT, cases treated with PT (15-25 mmHg) showed significant differences in Vancouver Scar Scale score (MD = -0.58, 95% CI = -0.78--0.37), thickness (SMD = -0.25, 95% CI = -0.40--0.11), brightness (MD = 2.00, 95% CI = 0.59-3.42), redness (MD = -0.79, 95% CI = -1.52--0.07), pigmentation (MD = -0.16, 95% CI = -0.32--0.00) and hardness (SMD = -0.65, 95% CI = -1.07--0.23). However, there was no difference in vascularity (MD = 0.03, 95% CI = -0.43-0.48). Our analysis indicated that patients with HS who were managed with PT (15-25 mmHg) showed significant improvements. Due to limitations, more large and well-designed studies are needed to confirm our findings and the side-effects of the PT may also need to be evaluated.
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.
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 | 0.012 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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 it