Effect of extracorporeal shock wave therapy on improving burn scar in patients with burnt extremities in Isfahan, Iran
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Pathologic scarring is a common problem after burn injury that has functional and esthetic limitations. Conservative and surgical treatments available for these scars are not always satisfactory. Extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT) is a noninvasive modality that has proven positive effects on burn scars and wound healing in few studies. This study was conducted to evaluate the effects of ESWT on improving burn scar in extremities. Materials and Methods: This study was a prospective quasi-experimental on burn patients with burn scar in their extremities that underwent ESWT sessions once a week for 6 weeks. For evaluating pain and itching, visual analog scale (VAS) and for scar appearance, Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS) were used. These scales were measured and compared at the beginning of the treatment, at the end of the treatment, and 1 and 3 months after the end of the intervention. Results: In this study, 17 patients were treated with ESWT with a mean age of 37.94 ± 7.25 years that 47.1% of them were male. The mean of VAS score for pain and itching and VSS score were decreased significantly after the treatment and during follow-ups (All P < 0.001). Conclusion: ESWT can improve the pain, itching, and appearance of the burn scar in human extremities in burn patients.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".