Comparison of combination skin substitutes and skin grafts versus skin grafts only for treating wounds measured by Vancouver Scar Scale: A comprehensive meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Skin is the largest organ in the body and has multiple significant functions. A malformation or injury that compromises its integrity can lead to major issues or even mortality. Wound healing is a vital physiological process of the human skin which facilitates the repair of any damage and the preservation of homeostasis. Possible complications or infections that are fatal may ensue if the patient does not recover within the specified time. Therefore, it is essential to develop biomaterials which facilitate tissue regeneration and exhibit robust biological properties. We conducted a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to compare combinations of skin replacements and skin grafts to skin grafts alone for wound treatment, as measured by the Vancouver Scar Scale. Methods: This meta-analysis utilized various databases, including as PubMed, ProQuest, Web of Science, Science Direct, Scopus, EBSCOhost, and ClinicalTrials.gov, to conduct a comprehensive search for randomized controlled trials that compared the effectiveness of combined skin substitutes and skin grafts to skin grafts alone in the treatment of wounds. The results primarily consisted of scar features assessed using the Vancouver Scar Scale. Results: Meta-analysis was conducted on a sample of 216 participants from 7 randomized controlled trials. The trials were conducted from 2002 to 2015. The study demonstrated that the use of skin substitutes resulted in a statistically significant improvement in Vancouver Scar Scales ratings compared to skin grafts alone. The mean change was 1.38 (95% CI: 0.13–2.63; p = 0.03). Conclusion: This meta-analysis indicates that the use of skin replacements provides substantial advantages and effectively aids in the closure of wounds. There is no inherent superiority among different skin substitutes. Instead, their suitability for specific patient wound circumstances is the determining factor. A comprehensive and advantageous skin substitute of significant magnitude is needed, rather than relying solely on grafts.
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 | 0.015 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.020 | 0.063 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".