Bevacizumab as Adjuvant Therapy in the Treatment of Keloid: A Randomized Clinical Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background. Despite the availability of numerous therapies, keloid treatment remains a challenging clinical issue. Intralesional triamcinolone has been established as an effective corticosteroid treatment for keloids, while sporadic reports suggest the efficacy of intralesional verapamil. This study aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of bevacizumab as an adjuvant therapy for keloid treatment. Methods. This randomized controlled trial involved 38 patients diagnosed with keloid according to clinical criteria. The study compared the effects of intralesional triamcinolone combined with bevacizumab injections with intralesional triamcinolone alone. Patients were randomly assigned to either the combination treatment group, which received intralesional triamHEXAL® (20 mg/ml, every two weeks for three months) plus Avastin® (2.5 mg/ml, every two weeks for two months), or the single treatment group, which received intralesional triamHEXAL® alone. The Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS) was used for serial photographic records of scar evaluation, with differences in VSS scores considered the primary outcome, and changes in height and patient satisfaction visual analog score (VAS) were secondary outcomes. Results. A total of 38 patients participated, with a mean age (SD) of 35.32 (14.02) years and 50% male. No significant differences in age, BMI, disease duration, gender, causing, family history, or site were observed between the two groups. The single treatment group exhibited a mean reduction of 0.60 (95% CI: (−1.18, −0.01); P = 0.045) in pigmentation score and a mean decrease of 1.37 (95% CI: (−2.68, −0.07); P = 0.039) in total score compared to the combination treatment group after three months of treatment. There was a significant reduction in keloid height in the combination group after the end of the treatment (P = 0.024). No significant differences in side effects were observed between the two groups. Conclusion. Our study demonstrates that bevacizumab can be considered an effective and safe adjuvant therapy option for keloid treatment, suggesting its potential as a promising treatment for the management of keloids. This trial is registered with IRCT20131119015455N5 .
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".