T3 Randomized, Controlled, Within-patient, Single-blinded Study to Evaluate the Efficacy of Corticosteroid Injections for the Treatment of Hypertrophic Scar in Adult Burn Survivors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction Intralesional corticosteroid injections (CSI) have become one of the cornerstone treatments of hypertrophic scar (HSc). However, the evidence is of limited-quality and published investigations have almost exclusively been performed in linear scars rather than hypertrophic burn scars. Thus, the aim of this study was to perform an appropriately powered, single-blinded, randomized controlled trial (RCT) to evaluate the impact of CSI on burn HSc compared to patient-matched control (C) scars. Methods Fifty burn survivors with 2 independent scars (separated by non-scarred skin preferably on the contralateral side or an anatomically similar site) were selected based on high-frequency ultrasound thickness (>2.034 mm to ensure that the site were outside of the range of normal scar). Baseline thickness measurements of the 2 sites were within 0.5 mm of each other, to ensure homogeneity and an erythema index >300 to establish they were immature HSc. The sites were randomly assigned to treatment (Tx) or C. The Tx HSc received a 10 mg/ml CSI. The CSI was repeated 6 weeks later and a 3rd final injection 6 weeks later if deemed necessary. Objective evaluation of thickness, pliability, erythema and melanin were obtained at the Tx and C sites at baseline, end of Tx and 6 weeks after the last injection. Thirty one participants completed the study, reaching the required number for an adequately powered sample based on pilot study data analyses. Results The mean number of injections per site was 2.1(±0.7 SD). An ANCOVA comparing the Tx vs C post-Tx, controlling for baseline and Fitzpatrick skin type, revealed a significant decrease (↓) in thickness and increase (↑) in pliability of the Tx compared to C HSc (p=0.0003), but no significant difference in erythema or melanin. Baseline to post-Tx comparisons using paired t-tests revealed significant ↓ in thickness of both the Tx and C HSc and ↑ in pliability of the Tx HSc during the Tx period, but no significant change in C HSc pliability or erythema. Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test revealed a significant ↑ in melanin of both Tx (p< 0.001) and C (p=0.0035) HSc. A regression model for repeated measures, controlling for baseline and skin type, revealed no significant change in thickness, pliability, erythema or melanin during the 6 week follow up. Conclusions Although HSc thickness ↓ at both the Tx and C site across time there was a significantly greater reduction at the CSI site and significantly greater ↑ in pliability. Melanin significantly ↑ at both the Tx and C site. There was no significant change during follow up of any of the HSc characteristics. Applicability of Research to Practice This well-controlled RCT demonstrated the benefits CSI for burn HSc thickness and pliability and the need for patient-matched C HSc.
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 | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".