MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Supplementary Material for: Intralesional corticosteroid administration in the treatment of keloids: a scoping review on injection methods

2023· dataset· en· W6958540898 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueFigshare · 2023
Typedataset
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Pathogens and Resistance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTriamcinolone acetonideCorticosteroidDosingRandomized controlled trialSyringePlaceboClinical trial

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Intralesional corticosteroid administration (ICA) is a first-line treatment for keloids. However, its clinical results are still highly variable and often suboptimal. Treatment results may strongly be influenced by various operator dependent factors. The aim of this study is to map the details of ICA in keloids described in randomized controlled trials (RCTs), hence presenting the scientific practice of a first-line treatment for keloids in the best available evidence. Summary A systematic search was performed on PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE and CENTRAL. Eligible studies were RCTs including patients with keloids treated with intralesional corticosteroids. Treatment and study design related data were charted on a predefined form. Thirty-eight RCTs were included for data extraction. Triamcinolone acetonide was used in 37 (97.4%) studies. Dosing per cm2 could only be compared among ten (26%) studies, and varied from 1 to 20 mg. The maximum dose per session varied from 20 to 80 mg. Anesthetics were administered locally and orally in seven and one RCT(s). Treatment intervals varied from weekly to monthly, with four weeks most frequently (50%) used. Needle size was reported in eleven (29%) studies and varied from 26 to 30-gauge. Syringe size was specified in four (11%) studies, being 1 mL. The injection level was described in eleven (29%) studies. Blanching as endpoint was reported in ten (26%) studies. Outcome measures varied widely, from height, surface area or volume, to Vancouver Scar Scale, Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale, pain and itch scores, patient satisfaction and different efficacy rates. Only six studies had a follow-up of ≥6 months. Recurrence was identified in two studies with 18 weeks and 1 year of follow-up. Adverse events were reported in 25 (66%) studies. Key messages There is incomplete reporting and substantial heterogeneity in many aspects of ICA and study design among RCTs. This scoping review underscores the urgent need for standardization of treatment protocol and study design to enhance and uniform research conduct among keloid studies.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: Dataset
Teacher disagreement score0.045
Threshold uncertainty score0.989

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.000

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 head0.103
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.261 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreDataset

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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFigshareSame topicPlant Pathogens and ResistanceFrench-language works237,207