Extracorporeal shockwave therapy for the treatment of deep dermal burns of the hand: A preliminary study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Extracorporeal shockwave therapy is used to treat chronic wounds; however, the effect on acute burn wounds of the hand has not been elucidated. We aimed to determine the healing effect of extracorporeal shockwave therapy on the wounds of patients with deep dermal hand burns, and preliminarily explore the mechanism thereof. We recruited 40 patients with deep dermal hand burns who were randomly divided into a routine dressing treatment group (n = 20) and an extracorporeal shockwave therapy group (n = 20). The wounds of the extracorporeal shockwave group were treated on days 3, 5, and 7 after injury. Percentage of wound healing, blood perfusion, infection, pain scores, and Vancouver Scar Scale of scars from 6 months after patient discharge were recorded and compared between the groups. Our method enabled us to find that the percentage of wound healing in the extracorporeal shockwave group was significantly better than that in the routine dressing treatment group. The immediate blood perfusion of wounds in the extracorporeal shockwave group after extracorporeal shockwave therapy increased significantly, and with the increase of time and treatment frequency, the wounds in the extracorporeal shockwave group reached peak blood perfusion earlier than that in the routine dressing treatment group. In conclusion, extracorporeal shockwave therapy can effectively shorten the healing time of deep dermal burns of the hand. The mechanism of action may be related to the immediate and long-term effects of increasing blood perfusion in burn wounds, while effectively reducing wound pain and controlling the spread of inflammation in the acute phase.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".