MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404444551 · doi:10.1093/jbcr/irae204

Evidence Supporting Conservative Scar Management Interventions Following Burn Injury: A Review Article

2024· review· en· W4404444551 on OpenAlexaff
Zoë Edger-Lacoursière, Mengyue Zhu, Stéphanie Jean, Elisabeth Marois-Pagé, Bernadette Nedelec

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Burn Care & Research · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDermatologic Treatments and Research
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de MontréalMcGill UniversityInstitut de Readaptation Gingras Lindsay de MontrealJewish Rehabilitation Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePsychological interventionBurn injuryConservative managementIntensive care medicineMedical emergencySurgeryNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Conservative management for hypertrophic scars (HSc) and scar contractures is of utmost importance to optimally reintegrate burn survivors into society. Many conservative treatment interventions have been described in the literature for the management of HSc. Recent advancements in the literature pertaining to postburn scarring and HSc formation have advanced our understanding of the mechanisms that support or refute the use of common rehabilitation treatment modalities after burn injury. This is particularly relevant for recent advancements in the fields of mechanotransduction and neurogenic inflammation, resulting in the need for rehabilitation clinicians to reflect upon commonly employed treatment interventions. The aim of this review article is to summarize and clinically apply the evidence that supports or refutes the use of common conservative treatment interventions for scar management employed after burn injury. The following treatments are discussed, and mechanotransduction and neurogenic inflammation concepts are highlighted: (1) edema management (compression, positioning/elevation, pumping exercises, retrograde massage, and manual edema mobilization); (2) pressure therapy (including custom fabricated pressure garments, inserts, face masks, and other low-load long-duration orthotic devices); (3) gels or gel sheets; (4) combined pressure therapy and gels; (5) serial casting; (6) scar massage; and (7) passive stretching. This review supports the following statements: (1) Compression for edema reduction should be initiated 48-72 hours postinjury and continued for wounds that require longer than 21 days to heal until scar maturation; (2) Elevation, pumping exercises, and retrograde massage/MEM should be used in combination with other edema management techniques; (3) Custom-fabricated pressure garments should be applied once the edema is stabilized and adequate healing has occurred. Garments should be monitored on a regular basis to ensure that optional pressure, >15 mm Hg, is maintained, adding inserts when necessary. The wearing time should be >16 hours/day; (4) Gels for postburn scar management should extend beyond the scar; (5) Serial casting should be applied when contractures interfere with function; (6) Forceful scar massage should be avoided early in the wound healing process or when the scar is inflamed or breaks down; and (7) Other treatment modalities should be prioritized over passive stretching for scar management.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesResearch integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.671
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.003
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 head0.393
GPT teacher head0.601
Teacher spread0.208 · 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.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations10
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Burn Care & ResearchSame topicDermatologic Treatments and ResearchFrench-language works237,207