Effectivness of Micropore Tape in Treatment of Hypertrophic Scar after Wrist Burn
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Burns are caused by exposure to excessive heat as flame, hot surfaces, scalding liquids, friction, electricity and chemical burns. Hypertrophic scarring is a frequent and undesirable complication of burn injuries.Aim of Study: This study was conducted to investigate the effectiveness of micropore tape in treatment of hypertrophic scar after wrist burn.Subjects and Methods: Thirty patients complaining of hypertrophic scar after wrist burn selected from learning hospitals (Al-Kaser Al-Ayni Hospital and Om El-Masryeen Hospital) in Cairo shared in this study. Their ages were ranged from 20 to 45 years. Patients who are suffering from malignant tumors, patients with 3rd degree burns of wrist and patients with major burns covering more than 20% of TBS were excluded from this study. They were divided into two equal groups: Group (A) who received micropore tape treatment in addition to normal physical therapy program (stretching exercises and strengthening exercises), routine medical treat-ment and traditional care (dressing) 30 minutes 3 sessions/ week for 12 weeks. Group B who received normal physical therapy program (stretching exercises and strengthening exercises), routine medical treatment and traditional care (dressing) 30 minutes 3 sessions/ week for 12 weeks. Pigmen-tation, vascularity, pliability and height were measured by Vancouver scar scale. Results: The results showed that there is significant difference in Vancouver scar scale in group A pre and post treatment and there is significant difference in Vancouver scar scale in group B pre and post treatment and there is a significant difference in Vancouver scar scale between group A and B pre and post treatment as group A improved more than group B.Conclusion: It can be concluded that micropore tape with physical therapy treatment has an effect on hypertrophic scar after wrist burn more than physical therapy only.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".