MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403082027 · doi:10.1111/iwj.70065

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

2024· article· en· W4403082027 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Masoumeh Roohaninasab, Alireza Jafarzadeh, Afsaneh Sadeghzadeh‐Bazargan, Sona Zare, Maryam Nouri, Mohammad Ali Nilforoushzadeh, Elham Behrangi

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Wound Journal · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDermatologic Treatments and Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHyaluronic acidMedicinePlatelet-rich plasmaScarsErythemaPlaceboDermatologySurgeryInternal medicinePlateletPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 CO 2 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 &lt;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 &lt;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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.146
Threshold uncertainty score0.687

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.318 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations30
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Wound JournalSame topicDermatologic Treatments and ResearchFrench-language works237,207