MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7127252677

A randomised investigation of film-forming silicone gel in superficial partial thickness face and neck burn patients: Indication of improved early scar pigmentation outcomes

2024· article· en· W7127252677 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueResearchOnline@ND (The University of Notre Dame) · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicWound Healing and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSiliconeRandomized controlled trialWound careComplicationConservative managementStandard of careHypertrophic scarConservative treatment
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Burns to the face and neck are a source of considerable distress and a challenge to manage with dressings. Further, these often superficial injuries pose a risk of scarring and altered pigmentation. Silicone gels have emerged as a potential solution to the challenges of conservative management for face and neck burn injuries. The aims of this study were to explore the effect of topical silicone compared to routine treatment of conservatively managed burns to the face and neck. Methods: This single-blind, randomised, controlled trial compared topical silicone filmforming dressing to standard of care for superficial partial thickness burns to the face and neck. Time to healing was the primary outcome and secondary outcomes included: 1) scar assessments (modified Vancouver Scar Scale, Dermalab Combo and Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale) at six weeks and three months; and 2) pain intensity scale at wound review appointments. Results: Of the 55 participants in the face/neck study, 34 were male and 21 were female. Median age was 36 years (range from 25 to 47 years). The median time to healing for the silicone group was 9 days (CI 7.6 −10.4) and the control group was 7 days (CI 5.3- 8.7), p = 0.056. Analysis demonstrated significantly reduced pigmentation at six weeks in mVSS scores for the silicone group (Md = 0, IQR = 0) compared to the control group (Md = 0, IQR =0 – 3), p = 0.043. We found no evidence of differences in reported pain between the groups (Silicone - Md = 1.15, IQR 0.3 – 4.5 vs control group - Md = 1.5, IQR 0.6 – 3.8, z = −0.63, p = 0.53). No other differences were observed, and no adverse events were associated with the topical silicone in the study whereas an infection and a reaction were experienced in the control group. Conclusion: Film-forming silicone gel had comparable effects to standard of care emollient on wound healing of superficial partial thickness burns of the face and neck. Silicone treated wounds were associated with a significant improvement in scar pigmentation outcome at six weeks post-burn.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.304

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.267 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearchOnline@ND (The University of Notre Dame)Same topicWound Healing and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207