Efficacy of topical silicone gel in scar management: A systematic review and meta‐analysis of randomised controlled trials
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To assess the efficacy of topical silicone gel in the management of scars, we conducted this meta-analysis. The systematic search was performed on PubMed, Web of Science and Embase, and six randomised controlled trials with a total of 375 patients were involved. The outcome data of Vancouver Scar Scale were extracted from the studies and their effect sizes were calculated using Review Manager 5.3. As a result, topical silicone gel significantly reduced pigmentation, height, and pliability scores postoperatively compared with placebos or no treatment (Pigmentation: standard mean difference [SMD] = -0.55 [-0.83 to -0.26], P = .0002; Height: SMD = -0.73 [-1.02 to -0.44], P < .00001; Pliability: SMD = -0.49 [-0.95 to -0.03], P = .04). Topical silicone gel and silicone gel sheet were comparably effective (P > .05). The performance of topical silicone gel and other non-silicone topical treatment was also similar (P > .05). In summary, topical silicone gel was effective in post-operative scar prevention.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 it