Clinical Utility of Extracorporeal Shock Wave Therapy on Hypertrophic Scars of the Hand Caused by Burn Injury: A Prospective, Randomized, Double-Blinded Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Postburn hypertrophic scarring is a common complication in burn injuries to the hands, often associated with impaired hand function. We evaluated the effects of extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT), compared to a sham stimulation therapy, on hypertrophic scars of the hand caused by burn injury and investigated its effects on hand function. This was a double-blinded, randomized, controlled trial of 48 patients with a burn to their dominant right hand. The parameters of ESWT were as follows: energy flux density, 0.05–0.30 mJ/mm2; frequency, 4 Hz; 1000 to 2000 impulses per treatment; four treatments, once a week for four weeks. The outcomes measured were as follows: a 10-point visual analogue scale pain score; Vancouver scar scale for scar vascularity, height, pliability and pigmentation; ultrasound measurement of scar thickness; Jebsen−Taylor hand function test; grip strength; Perdue pegboard test; and the Michigan hand outcomes questionnaire. The change in the score from baseline to post-treatment was compared between the two groups. ESWT improved the pain score (p = 0.001), scar thickness (p = 0.018), scar vascularity (p = 0.0015), and improved hand function (simulated card-turning, p = 0.02; picking up small objects, p = 0.004). The other measured outcomes were not different between the two groups. ESWT is effective in decreasing pain, suppressing hypertrophic scarring, and improving hand function.
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 | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".