MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3009467182 · doi:10.1093/jbcr/iraa024.256

635 Compression Garments with Silicone Improve Hypertrophic Scars Compared to Compression Garments Alone: A Retrospective Study

2020· article· en· W3009467182 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Brett Hartman, Karen Robertson, Leigh Spera, M. Alan Hinton

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Burn Care & Research · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDermatologic Treatments and Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSiliconeScarsSurgeryHypertrophic scarHypertrophic scarsRetrospective cohort study

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction The management of hypertrophic scars is one of the major challenges facing healthcare providers in the treatment of burn patients. Two of the mainstay noninvasive clinical practices for hypertrophic scars is the utilization of pressure garments and garments with Silicone gel sheeting. Here, we present a comparison of the effectiveness of compression garments alone and garments with silicone in the treatment of a large pediatric patient population with hypertrophic scars. Methods A retrospective study was performed to compare the effectiveness of compression garments with silicone versus compression garments without silicone in the treatment of pediatric hypertrophic scars. Included in this study were patients who received at least 12 months of follow-up treatment with silicone or non-silicone compression garments between 2013 and 2018. Modified Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS) scores were analyzed 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post-injury/surgery for each scar. Descriptive statistics and t tests were used to summarize and compare the total VSS scores between the two groups. In addition, descriptive and ANOVA statistics were performed to compare the effectiveness of silicone compression treatment for scars located on different regions of the body. Results In total, the compression garment with silicone group included 99 scars of 70 different patients and the non-silicone group included 28 scars of 19 different patients. Before-after total VSS scores for silicone group decreased from 4.11 (SD, 1.522) to 1.47 (SD, 1.268) compared to a decrease from 3.27 (SD, 1.117) to 1.80 (SD, 1.380) for compression group after 12 months of treatment (P< 0.05). ANOVA analysis revealed no statistically significant difference between silicone’s effectiveness on scars located in different regions of the body based on total VSS score after 12 months of treatment (F(4, 99)=1.47, p< 0.05). Conclusions Compression garments with silicone are more effective in treating hypertrophic scars than garments without silicone. The effectiveness of silicone is independent of the scar location assuming sufficient contact and coverage. Applicability of Research to Practice This retrospective study supports the use Silicone compression garments for hypertrophic scars in pediatric patients and is completely applicable to medical practice.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.072
GPT teacher head0.400
Teacher spread0.328 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Burn Care & ResearchSame topicDermatologic Treatments and ResearchFrench-language works237,207