Comparison of Ba‐Hao burn ointment gauze and petrolatum gauze in split graft donor site healing: A randomized, prospective, and self‐control study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background and Aims To assess patient comfort, wound healing, and scarring at the 6‐month follow‐up of split‐skin graft donor sites treated with Ba‐Hao burn ointment (BHBO) gauze, a compound preparation of traditional Chinese medicine since 1970s, compared with petrolatum gauze. Methods Thirty patients admitted to the Department of Burns of the First Affiliated Hospital of Anhui Medical University between September 2021 and September 2022 participated in this randomized, prospective, self‐control clinical study. After harvesting the split skin, donor sites were divided into two parts along the midline. BHBO gauze was applied to half of the donor wounds, and petrolatum gauze was applied to the other half. The wound healing time, pain scores on the postoperative Days 3, 6, and 9, and Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS) score at the 6‐month follow‐up were assessed. Results The wound healing time was significantly shorter in the BHBO group than in the control group (10.07 ± 1.48 days vs. 11.50 ± 1.74 days, p < 0.001). On postoperative Days 3 and 6, the pain scores quantified by visual analog scores were significantly lower in the BHBO group than in the control group (5.33 ± 1.54 and 4.17 ± 1.51, respectively vs. 7.57 ± 1.41 and 5.20 ± 1.47, respectively). The difference in the visual analog scale score on postoperative Day 9 between the groups was not significant ( p > 0.05). Microbiological assessment revealed the absence of bacterial contamination in both groups. At the 6‐month follow up, the VSS score was significantly lower in the BHBO group (6.67 ± 1.92) than in the control group (9.57 ± 1.55). Conclusion BHBO resulted in faster donor‐site healing, reduced postoperative pain, and improved scar quality at the 6‐month follow‐up than petrolatum gauze alone.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".