Focused versus radial extracorporeal shock wave therapy in post burn hypertrophic scar: A single blinded randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose. Hypertrophic scar (HTS) is one of the common post-burn complications that lead to functional and cosmetic impairments, so we pursued to examine efficacy of extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT) on HTS in expression of improving scar thickness and appearance. Materials and Methods. 60 patients with post burn HTS were recruited in this trial and divided randomly into 3 equal groups. Group A: received focus ESWT (100 shock waves per cm2, 0.037 mJ/mm2, 4 Hz, 2 times/week for six weeks) plus traditional topical medication (MEBO Scaro cream). Group B: received radial ESWT (500 shock waves per cm2, 0.13 mJ/mm2, 6 Hz, 2 times/week for six weeks) plus MEBO Scaro cream. Group: received only MEBO Scaro cream. Ultrasonography was utilized for scar thickness measurement and scar characteristics assessment was done by Modified Vancouver Scar Scale (MVSS). All measures were gathered before the start of the study, and after termination of the trial (after 6 weeks). Results. Both focus and radial ESWT showed significant advance in scar thickness and MVSS post treatment (p > 0.001), without statistical differences between them (p > 0.05), while group C showed only a significant diminution in MVSS post treatment (p > 0.001), without any change in scar thickness. Conclusion. Higher statistical results were achieved with both focus and radial ESWT without any side effects, confirming the safety and efficiency of ESWT in HTS management.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".