Effect of Autologous Skin Cell Suspensions Versus Standard Treatment on Re-Epithelialization in Burn Injuries: A Meta-Analysis of RCTs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and Objectives: Burn injuries, particularly partial-thickness burns, often require advanced therapies to improve re-epithelialization and scar quality. This study aims to evaluate the efficacy of autologous skin cell suspensions, such as Recell, compared to standard treatments in promoting faster and better-quality skin healing. Our goal is to provide evidence-based conclusions on the effectiveness of these regenerative approaches in burn treatment. Materials and Methods: During our comprehensive investigation, we systematically examined several databases for the period to November 2024, including PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Our primary objective was to assess the efficacy of autologous cell suspension in treatment for burn injuries. We employed the ROB2 method to assess the quality of evidence to ensure the validity of the conclusions derived from these studies. The gathered data were systematically organized in a standardized online format and analyzed with RevMan 5.4. Results: Our systematic literature search identified nine studies (n = 358 patients) evaluating the efficacy of autologous skin cell suspensions in promoting re-epithelialization in burn injuries. The meta-analysis revealed a statistically significant reduction in time to re-epithelialization in the autologous skin cell suspension group compared to the control group (MD = −1.71 days, 95% CI [−2.73, −0.70], p = 0.001), with moderate heterogeneity among the studies (I2 = 58%). However, no significant differences were found in secondary outcomes, including postoperative pain (SMD = −0.71, 95% CI [−2.42, 1.00], p = 0.42), POSAS scores (MD = −0.35, 95% CI [−2.12, 1.42], p = 0.69), Vancouver Scar Scale (MD = −0.76, 95% CI [−2.86, 1.33], p = 0.48), or the incidence of complete healing by the 4th week (RR = 0.98, 95% CI [0.94, 1.02], p = 0.24). Similarly, no significant differences were found in postoperative infection rates (RR = 0.85, 95% CI [0.28, 2.60], p = 0.78) or the need for further interventions (RR = 0.15, 95% CI [0.02, 1.16], p = 0.07). Conclusions: autologous skin cell suspension significantly reduces the time to re-epithelialization in burn injuries compared to standard treatments. However, no significant differences were found in secondary outcomes, such as postoperative pain, scar quality (POSAS, Vancouver Scar Scale), complete healing rates, infection rates, or the need for additional interventions. While autologous skin cell suspension shows promise in accelerating re-epithelialization, it does not provide significant advantages over conventional methods in other clinical aspects. The results underscore the need for further research with larger, more robust studies to assess the long-term benefits of autologous skin cell suspension in burns carefully.
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 | 0.028 | 0.054 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.024 | 0.069 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| 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".