ArticleInternational journal of clinical and experimental medicine2013
Experimental study of comparing rhEGF with rhβFGF on improving the quality of wound healing.
Article in International journal of clinical and experimental medicine, 2013. 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Treatment of atrophic acne scarring with fractional micro-plasma radio-frequency in Chinese patients: A prospective study.Lasers in surgery and medicine · 2018Trial
- Tissue Engineering in Stomatology: A Review of Potential Approaches for Oral Disease Treatments.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2021Review
- Efficacy of combined treatment with vacuum sealing drainage and recombinant human epidermal growth factor for refractory wounds in the extremities and its effect on serum levels of IL-6, TNF-α and IL-2.Experimental and therapeutic medicine · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The mechanism and biological effects of comparing recombinant human epidermal growth factor (rhEGF) with recombinant human basic fibroblast growth factor (rhβFGF) were evaluated on the model of incised wounds on ventral side of rabbit's ears in order to direct their medication in clinical. Total of 72 incised wounds on ventral side of 24 New Zealand rabbits' ears were divided randomly into two therapeutic groups (rhEGF group with 10 μg/cm(2) and rhβFGF group with 100 AU/cm(2)) and a control group (1% silver sulfadiazine cream, SD-Ag). The observation of wounds, the measurements of healing wound area, the calculation of wound closing index, the histopathological examination, the electrical microscopic examination, and the expression of examining integrin β1 mRNA of samples of three groups by in situ hybridization technique were used to evaluate the results of wound healing. The results showed that the wound healing was accelerated in all wounds treated with rhEGF and rhβFGF, and the quality of healing wounds of two therapeutic groups was better than that of the control group. In rhβFGF group, new granulation tissue was more than that of rhEGF group in earlier period and metaphase of healing wound, however, the velocity of re-epithelialization in rhEGF group was faster than that of rhβFGF group in metaphase and late period. The results indicate that rhEGF and rhβFGF can improve wound healing, but the detailed mechanisms and the biological effects were different. rhβFGF may be used to promote the growth of granulation tissue in earlier period and metaphase of healing wound, however, rhEGF may be used to accelerate the velocity of re-epithelialization in metaphase and late period. That rhβFGF and rhEGF were utilized in sequence can not only accelerate the velocity of healing wound and promote the quality of healing wound but also obtain the best ratio of effects versus value.
Indexed as
Identifiers
24040473PMC3762620W134027970What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.