Increased Patient Compliance with Silicone Gel Sheeting and Topical Silicone Gel for Hypertrophic Scar Improves Scar Outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Although silicone-based products are widely used for hypertrophic scar (HS) treatment, limited research exists on the correlation between patient compliance of silicone products and scar outcomes. This study aims to investigate whether continuous and consistent use of topical silicone gel (TSG) and silicone gel sheet (SGS) improves scar characteristics and whether patient compliance influences scar outcomes.Methods: A total of 79 patients with HS were randomized into either TSG (n=38) or SGS group (n=41) by an independent physician who had not seen the patients. Patient compliance was assessed based on application frequency and duration. Patients were divided into three subgroups according to compliance. Scar characteristics were evaluated using the Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS) and patient self-assessment via a visual analogue scale (VAS) for 6 months.Results: VSS pigmentation and scar height worsened in patients who applied silicone products for less than 3 days per week, especially in the TSG group. Patients who applied silicone products for more than 4 days per week showed significant improvements in all factors. Patients reported improvements in VAS scar height, pigmentation, and hardness as application time increased. Pain and itching improved regardless of application time.Conclusion: Continuous and consistent use of TSG and SGS improved HS outcomes. Applying silicone products more than 4 days in a week correlated with better scar characteristics, except pain and itching. Applying silicone products less than 3 days in a week is not recommended, as this may worsen scar height and pigmentation.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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".