Management of hypertrophic scars in adults: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Hypertrophic scars (HTS) are elevated scars which occur due to abnormalities in wound healing after injury and may be associated with pain, pruritus and functional impairment. Despite multiple available treatment options, there is no universal approach to treating HTS. We searched the Web of Science (Core Collection), MEDLINE and EMBASE databases. Title, abstract and full‐text screening, along with data extraction, were performed in duplicate. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk‐of‐bias tool. The Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS) scores and mean differences were used for meta‐analysis. We screened 3800 abstracts and included 34 randomised controlled trials evaluating treatments for HTS in adults. Silicone and laser modalities improved VSS scores by 5.06 (95% CI: 6.78, 3.34) and 3.56 (95% CI: 5.58, 1.54), respectively. Intralesional triamcinolone combined with silicone or 5‐fluorouracil was superior to intralesional triamcinolone monotherapy. Limitations of this study include exclusion of studies which did not utilise VSS, and pooling of studies based on common modalities. Further studies are needed to examine the efficacy of existing and emerging treatment modalities for HTS. Our study supports the treatment of HTS in adults with silicone gel or sheets, injected triamcinolone (preferably combined with 5‐fluorouracil or silicone products), pulsed dye laser and fractionated CO 2 laser.
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) | 0.012 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".