Long-term effects of vacuum massage on postburn hypertrophic scar thickness: a single blind randomised controlled study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background. Burn victims develop hypertrophic scar as a progression to burn wound healing. Physical therapy intervention may help, as adjuvant therapy, in solving this problem. Objective. The aim was to study the effectiveness of vacuum therapy on the post burn scar in addition to conventional physical therapy. Design, Setting, and Participants. Randomized, single-blind, superiority, parallel, controlled, clinical trial in patients with hypertrophic scar post-burn in the lower limb, age between 20 and 40 years, selected form Out-Patient Clinic of burn and surgery in the South Valley University Hospitals between October 2017 and May 2018. 48 patients were randomized into either study or control group, using block randomization (study group n=24 and control group n=24). Interventions: conventional physical therapy in form of friction massage and lower limb muscles stretching was conducted for the control group and vacuum treatment in addition to conventional physical therapy was conducted for the study group. Treatment frequency was 3 sessions per week for 4 weeks. Outcomes: assessment of scar thickness using ultrasonography and assessment of scar severity by modified Vancouver Scar Scale (mVSS) were the main outcomes. Results. 42 patients were analysed (study group n = 22 and control group n = 20) with follow up measure after 4 weeks showed significant improvement in scar sickness with 22% and 34% percentage of improvement and 56% and 62% improvement in mVSS within groups control and study groups respectively, with no significant difference between both groups in before or after treatment measures. Conclusion. Adding vacuum therapy to conventional physical therapy treatment program is effective but not superior to the conventional physical therapy intervention alone, in the form of friction massage and stretching, in the treatment of lower limb hyper trophic scar
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".