Comparison of Silicone Sheets and Paper Tape for the Management of Postoperative Scars: A Randomized Comparative Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of silicone sheets and paper tape in the prevention of postoperative cesarean section scars. METHODS: Patients undergoing horizontal cesarean section were included in this randomized controlled trial. Surgical wounds were divided into two halves. Patients randomly applied silicone sheets or paper tape to each side of their wound as assigned for 3 months. Wounds were assessed at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months after surgery. Researchers used the objective Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS) to evaluate the scars and the subjective visual analog scale (VAS) to evaluate itch, pain, and scar appearance. RESULTS: No significant differences between the silicone sheet and paper tape groups were noted at postoperative follow-ups with respect to VSS scores. The silicone sheet group had significantly better VAS scores for scar appearance than the paper tape group at 6 (6.81 ± 1.47 vs 6.19 ± 1.62, P = .03) and 12 (6.88 ± 2.01 vs 6.2 ± 2.08, P = .04) months' follow-up, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The silicone sheet group showed statistically significant differences in comparison with the paper tape group in terms of scar appearance as determined by the VAS. However, the differences were too small to be clinically meaningful.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".