ReviewHealthcare (Basel, Switzerland)2023
Treatment and Improvement of Healing after Surgical Intervention.
Review in Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Perioperative knowledge needs in maxillofacial trauma patients: a cross-sectional survey.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Review
- A Comparative Analysis of the Advances in Scar Reduction: Techniques, Technologies, and Efficacy in Plastic Surgery.Cureus · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The development of abnormal scars has a great impact on people's well-being, and improving scarring outcomes after surgery is a field that currently lacks consensus. This review aims to identify newly researched approaches to improving the quality of surgical scars. A systematic search of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and ScienceDirect was conducted between 13 May 2023 and 17 May 2023, in accordance with the recommendations of the PRISMA Statement. Study selection and analysis of methodological quality were performed in parts, independently and blindly, based on eligibility criteria. The 21 prospective, comparative, and randomized studies reviewed included 1057 subjects and studied approaches such as topical applications of creams with herbal extracts and silicone gels, growth factors, negative pressure dressings, oligonucleotides, intralesional injection of compounds such as botulinum toxin, skin closure techniques such as suturing and tissue adhesive, and laser treatments. There are recent research techniques that generate good results and are really promising to improve the results of surgical scars; however, the available evidence is extremely limited in some cases, and it is necessary to deepen its analysis to obtain reliable action protocols in each type of surgery.
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.