Comparison of the Efficacy of Combined Silver Nitrate Coagulation and Shave Excision With Surgical Excision and Linear Closure in the Treatment of Pyogenic Granuloma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Pyogenic granuloma (PG) is a common benign vascular neoplasia. Optimal treatment should have an aesthetically pleasant scar and a low recurrence rate. No treatment method that is fully effective in solving these has been demonstrated. Silver nitrate cauterization is another method for the management of PG lesions. OBJECTIVE: The effects of silver nitrate on the treatment of PG have not been sufficiently investigated and should be investigated with objective data and a controlled study. METHODS: The prospective clinical trial was designed to compare silver nitrate cauterization with surgical excision treatment. Procedure times and procedure costs, comfort and satisfaction scales, recurrences, the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Score, and the Vancouver Scar Scale were compared to evaluate treatments. RESULTS: Silver nitrate treatment had lower procedure times, costs, and better satisfaction and comfort scale scores. The scar assessment scores were better for the silver nitrate treatment. The patients in both groups were successfully treated and no recurrence was seen. CONCLUSION: Silver nitrate cauterization is low-cost, fast, safe, reliable, and effective with good aesthetic results for the treatment of PG lesions. This study shows that silver nitrate cauterization is a good alternative to surgical excision in the management of PG.
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".