Glucocorticosteroid and Silicone Gel During Patch Application Without Clinical Scar Improvement After Central Venous Catheter Removal: A Randomized Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: We studied whether glucocorticosteroid during patch occlusion has a beneficial effect on scar outcome in children and adolescents treated for cancer. METHODS: A double-blinded placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial was performed. The main outcome was the Vancouver Scar Scale. Secondary outcomes were scar width and scar quality measured using the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale. The patients were divided into an intervention groups and a control group. The intervention group was randomized into active and placebo group. The active treatment consisted of cream with glucocorticosteroid and fusidic acid. The placebo treatment consisted of cream with fusidic acid. Both groups received silicone gel patch after central venous catheter removal. The control group received no specific skin care. RESULTS: Assessment at 12 months showed that the intervention group had a significantly lower Vancouver Scar Scale and a smaller scar (0,1 cm) compared with the control group ( P =0.00, P =0.02) but no benefit of glucocorticosteroid. The Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale showed no significant difference between the intervention and control groups ( P =0.84, P =0.36). CONCLUSIONS: Silicone gel sheet alone or in combination with application of glucocorticosteroid during sheet occlusion does not clinically improve scar outcome after removal of central venous catheter in children treated for neoplastic diseases.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".