Evaluation of the efficacy, safety and satisfaction rates of platelet‐rich plasma, non‐cross‐linked hyaluronic acid and the combination of platelet‐rich plasma and non‐cross‐linked hyaluronic acid in patients with burn scars treated with fractional <scp>CO<sub>2</sub></scp> laser: A randomized controlled clinical trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Skin scarring can result from burns, injuries, stretch marks and acne, leading to cosmetic and functional difficulties. Treatments for burn scars encompass a range of options, such as lasers, corticosteroid injections, surgery and regenerative techniques such as platelet‐rich plasma (PRP). Hyaluronic acid‐based products offer skin hydration and shield against aging effects. A study is being conducted to evaluate how effective PRP injection, hyaluronic acid and their combination improve burn scars and their effects on quality of life and potential disabilities. In our study, PRP and non‐cross‐linked hyaluronic acid treatments were compared in 10 individuals with burn scars between 2022 and 2023. Patients received CO2 fractional laser treatment followed by injections in scar areas. Evaluations included the Vancouver scar scale (VSS), biometric assessments, ultrasounds and satisfaction ratings. Two therapy sessions were conducted at 1‐month interval, and assessments were done before treatment, 1 month after the first session, and 3 months after the first session. Biometric assessments showed significant improvements in various parameters (tewametry, corneometry, erythema index, melanin index, cutometry, thickness and density) in the intervention groups compared to the placebo group (p <0.05). PRP‐non‐cross‐linked hyaluronic acid, PRP and non‐cross‐linked hyaluronic acid treatments exhibited the best clinical responses with significant differences between groups (p <0.05). Dermal thickness did not show significant improvement during treatment sessions, and changes among subjects were not significantly different. The colorimetry parameter improved in all groups except the placebo group, with no significant difference between intervention groups. The VSS significantly decreased in all treatment groups except the placebo group. PRP, non‐cross‐linked hyaluronic acid and especially the combination of these two treatment options are very effective in treating burn scars.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".