Evaluating the Long-term Safety and Efficacy of Intralesional Statins versus Corticosteroids in the Treatment of Hypertrophic Scars: A Randomized Controlled Trial" Justification
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BackgroundHypertrophic scars (HTS) are fibrotic dermal disorders marked by excessive collagen accumulation subsequent to dermal injury. Triamcinolone acetonide is a commonly employed corticosteroid in the management of hypertrophic scars, yet its application is linked to complications including skin atrophy and pigmentary alterations. Statins, recognized for their antifibrotic and anti-inflammatory properties, offer a potential alternative with reduced adverse effects. Objective: This study sought to assess and contrast the long-term safety and efficacy of intralesional statins with corticosteroids (Triamcinolone acetonide) in the management of hypertrophic scars. MethodsA randomized controlled trial was performed at the Department of Plastic Surgery, Patna Medical College and Hospital, Patna. Sixty patients aged 10 to 50 years with hypertrophic scars of less than 5 years' duration were randomized into two groups: Group A (n=30) received intralesional Triamcinolone acetonide, while Group B (n=30) received intralesional simvastatin. Injections were given at three-week intervals, totaling five sessions. Scar assessment was conducted utilizing the Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS) at baseline, 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months. ResultsBoth groups exhibited a statistically significant decrease in VSS scores over time (p<0.05). Group B (statin) exhibited a more expedited enhancement, especially in vascularity and pliability metrics. At 12 months, the recurrence rate in the statin group was 20%, whereas in the corticosteroid group it was 36.7%. Adverse effects were negligible in both groups, comprising transient erythema and mild discomfort at the injection site. ConclusionIntralesional statins seem to be a viable alternative to corticosteroids for the management of hypertrophic scars, demonstrating similar efficacy with a potentially superior safety profile. It is advisable to conduct larger studies with prolonged follow-up to corroborate these findings.
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".