Comparison of the effectiveness of topical silicone gel and corticosteroid cream on the pfannenstiel scar prevention — a randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To compare the effects of topical silicone gel and corticosteroid cream for preventing hypertrophic scar and keloid formation following Pfannenstiel incisions. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Fifty patients operated for benign gynecological diseases through primary Pfannenstiel incision were included. The wounds were randomly allocated to the treatment and control arms. In the treatment arm, the wounds were divided into two halves; one was treated with silicone gel and the other with methylprednisolone cream. No treat-ment was administered to the control group. Scars using the modified Vancouver Scar Scale (MVSS), patient satisfaction, and side effects were evaluated before and after (3rd month when treatment discontinued and 6th month) the treatment. RESULTS: Thirty-nine patients (21 patients in the treatment group and 18 patients in the control group) completed the stu-dy. Intragroup comparisons of the 3rd month and 6th month scores of the MVSS revealed that the scores of all parameters (height, pigmentation, vascularity, pliability, and total MVSS score) significantly decreased at the 6th month evaluation as compared with the 3rd month evaluation in all groups (control, silicone, and methylprednisolone groups). Multiple group comparisons at the 6th month revealed that the most prominent improvements occurred in the methylprednisolone group in all MVSS parameters as compared with the control group and in the height, vascularity, and pigmentation parameters as compared with the silicone group. No side effects were experienced by the patients with either treatment and patient satisfaction was higher in the methylprednisolone group. CONCLUSION: The use of topical methylprednisolone cream in fresh wounds at the postoperative early period appears to be promising.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".