ArticleDrug design, development and therapy2020
Comparative Analysis of the Effectiveness of Some Biological Injected Wound Healing Stimulators and Criteria for Its Evaluation.
Article in Drug design, development and therapy, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Development of a Collagen-Cerium Oxide Nanohydrogel for Wound Healing: In Vitro and In Vivo Evaluation.Biomedicines · 2025Article
- Review
- Multifunctional and Smart Wound Dressings-A Review on Recent Research Advancements in Skin Regenerative Medicine.Pharmaceutics · 2022Review
- Acute Skin Wounds Treated with Mesenchymal Stem Cells and Biopolymer Compositions Alone and in Combination: Evaluation of Agent Efficacy and Analysis of Healing Mechanisms.Pharmaceutics · 2021Article
- Local and Remote Effects of Mesenchymal Stem Cell Administration on Skin Wound Regeneration.Pathophysiology : the official journal of the International Society for Pathophysiology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo investigate the comparative effectiveness of certain biological injectable stimulants for the healing of skin wounds and criteria for its assessment. MATERIALS AND
methodsA comparative study of the effectiveness of mesenchymal stem cells (SC group), collagen (Collagen group), and deproteinized calf blood hemoderivative (DCBH group) was carried out using an acute wound model. Control wounds were injected with isotonic sodium chloride solution (Control group). A total of four groups (28 wounds per group) were included in the study. Aged male Wistar rats were used as experimental animals. A dynamic assessment of the wound areas and edges, microvasculature assessment via laser Doppler flowmetry, histological and morphometric analyses to determine the quantitative and qualitative fibroblasts composition, as well as the degree of newly synthesized collagen maturity, was conducted on days 0, 3, 7, and 14.
resultsThe administration of SCs provided a rapid but short-lasting effect, whereas the administration of collagen resulted in a delayed but long-lasting wound-healing effect. DCBH resulted in little to no effect. An increase in the perfusion volume of the wound edges accelerated the regeneration process, while the level of microcirculation did not affect the number and activity of fibroblasts. The wound healing acceleration, as well as the new collagen and stratified epithelium formation and maturation, was associated with the presence of a sufficient pool of mature and active fibroblasts in the wound, and not with the number of fibroblasts.
conclusionThe present results clarify the action mechanisms of the studied drugs. In addition, the application purposes and different effects of each drug on the different wound healing phases were demonstrated. An assumption on the multi-component treatment advisability under the wound condition objective assessment possibility was made. Findings from this study may assist clinicians in making an informed transition to personalized wound management and achieve better clinical outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.