RETRACTED: A Prospective Randomized Double-blind study of silicone gel plus Herbal Extracts Versus Placebo in Pre-sternal hypertrophic scar prevention and amelioration
Post-publication record
Source: Retraction Watch, joined by DOI. OpenAlex records retraction as is_retracted, a boolean over a state space with at least four values, so it cannot express an expression of concern, a correction or a reinstatement; it reports them as false, which reads as “fine”.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Post-surgical hypertrophic scar is more frequently reported in Asians. Many modalities can treat scars but there have not been any publications to define the efficacy of silicone gel plus herbal extracts for scar prevention or amelioration. DESIGN: 48 patients, who underwent median sternotomy were randomized and double-blinded to 2 groups to use topical silicone gel plus herbal extract gel or placebo for 6 months. Patients were treated either with topical silicone gel plus herbal extract gel or control using only placebo for 6 months. The scars were observed by experienced plastic surgeons using the Vancouver scar scale. SETTING: A single tertiary care center at Khon Kaen University. PATICIPANTS: 48 patients who underwent median sternotomy were enrolled in this study. All patients were aged over 18 years. All the wounds were sutured with polyglycolic 4/0 subcuticular suture material and did not receive other scar management before participating in this study. INTERVENTION: The silicone gel plus herbal extract gel (Bangkok Botanica, Bangkok, Thailand) in semi-liquid form was formulated from 15% Herbal extract (Allium Cepa extract, Centella Asiatica extract, Aloe Vera extract and Paper Mulberry extract), 50% polydemethysiloxane, 30% cyclopentasiloxane and 5% silica. The placebo gel was a composite of water, acrylate, C10-30 alkyl acrylate cross-polymer, polysorbate 20 and fragrance that was similar in color and consistency as that of the active gel and packed in the similar sealed packages. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The scar was assessed using the Vancouver scar scale to determine pigmentation, vascularity, pliability and height. RESULTS: the study showed the silicone gel plus herbal extract gel could improve scar amelioration in height (p = 0.005) and pliability (p < 0.001) when compared to the placebo. The vascularity and pigmentation showed improvement using silicone gel plus herbal extracts but the improvement was not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: The silicone gel plus herbal extracts gel was effective for scar improvement in median sternotomy wounds.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
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".