MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3149483554 · doi:10.1093/jbcr/irab032.034

29 The Effectiveness of Laser Therapy for Hypertrophic Burn Scars in Pediatric Patients: A Prospective Investigation

2021· article· en· W3149483554 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jennifer Zuccaro, Joel Fish, Charis Kelly

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Burn Care & Research · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDermatologic Treatments and Research
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHypertrophic scarScarsHypertrophic scarsProspective cohort studySurgeryAblative caseRadiation therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction Laser therapy has emerged as a valuable treatment option for hypertrophic burn scars over the past decade. Improvements in scar symptoms have been found using the ablative fractional carbon dioxide laser (AFCL) as well as the pulsed dye laser (PDL). However, research regarding the use of laser therapy among pediatric burn patients remains limited. Thus, the aim of this study was to investigate the effectiveness of using laser therapy to improve hypertrophic burn scars in a pediatric population using a comprehensive set of subjective and objective scar assessment tools. Methods A single-center, prospective observational study was carried out at a tertiary pediatric hospital. Twenty participants with hypertrophic burn scars that had not received previous laser treatment were included. Laser procedures were administered at approximately two-month intervals and each participant attended five study visits over the course of one year. A comprehensive set of scar assessment tools including the Vancouver Scar Scale, the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale, conventional ultrasound, ultrasound elastography, and a multi-parameter skin analysis device were used to evaluate scar properties at each study visit. Results Seventy-one laser procedures were carried out with most participants receiving treatment with both the AFCL and the PDL at the same session (83%). All participants underwent at least three laser procedures with no complications noted. From baseline to study completion, statistically significant improvements in all scar measures, both subjective and objective, were observed (p < 0.05). More specifically, improvements in overall scarring and in specific scar properties including thickness (p < 0.05), stiffness (p < 0.05), and color (p < 0.05) were found. Conclusions To our knowledge, this is the most comprehensive study to date to evaluate the effect of laser treatment on hypertrophic burn scars in a pediatric population. Our findings suggest that laser therapy is a highly beneficial treatment for burn-injured children that should be integrated into current scar treatment practices. In addition to obtaining strong evidence to support the use of laser therapy, we utilized rigorous scar assessment and laser treatment protocols that can be easily adopted by other clinicians.

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)0.003
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
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.369
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

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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