ReviewCureus2024
A Comparative Analysis of the Advances in Scar Reduction: Techniques, Technologies, and Efficacy in Plastic Surgery.
Review in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Treatment outcomes using subcision combined with platelet-rich plasma for atrophic acne scars: a study in Vietnamese patients.Skin health and disease · 2026Article
- Analysis of the factors influencing reoperation for severe finger scar contracture in children-clinical data analysis of 61 children.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2026Article
- Effectiveness of different non-surgical scar reduction methods in post-operative scars: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Translational breast cancer research : a journal focusing on translational research in breast cancer · 2026Article
- Early multimodal treatment of post-traumatic facial scarring: A case report.SAGE open medical case reports · 2026Article
- Application of StandardizedPharmaceutics · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The study provides a comprehensive analysis of the latest methodologies and treatments aimed at improving scar management. Scar formation results from the replacement of normal skin with fibroblasts, leading to a structured unidirectional collagen bundle, as opposed to the collagen sheet matrix found in healthy skin. This review categorizes scars into hypertrophic scars and keloids, each with distinct pathophysiological characteristics. It highlights the importance of consistent scar assessment using scales such as the Vancouver Scar Scale and the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale, emphasizing the need for standardized evaluation methods. The study systematically reviews various scar management techniques, ranging from traditional surgical methods to innovative treatments. Conventional approaches such as pressure garments and silicone gel sheeting are explored, noting their roles in maintaining hydration and occlusion. The efficacy of intralesional corticosteroid injections and laser therapies is discussed, with particular attention given to their combined use for optimal outcomes. The review also covers advanced techniques such as microneedling, platelet-rich plasma therapy, and stem cell-based treatments, detailing their mechanisms and potential benefits in scar remodelling. Additionally, the study underscores the emerging role of botulinum toxin A in both preventive and corrective scar treatments, offering promising results in reducing movement-induced scar exaggeration. The systematic review includes a thorough examination of existing literature, clinical trials, and meta-analyses to evaluate the effectiveness of these interventions. It concludes by calling for further research to refine these techniques and enhance their application in clinical practice, aiming to achieve better aesthetic and functional outcomes for patients with scars.
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.