SynthesisInternational wound journal2017
Systematic review and meta-analysis of the efficacy of epidermal grafting for wound healing.
Synthesis in International wound journal, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- The application of platelet-rich plasma for skin graft enrichment: A meta-analysis.International wound journal · 2020Pooled it
- Systematic review of the efficacy of fat grafting and platelet-rich plasma for wound healing.International wound journal · 2018Pooled it
- Application of a minimally invasive full-thickness autologous microcolumn skin harvesting device for donor site tissue collection and augmenting wound healing in a porcine wound model.International wound journal · 2024Article
- Autologous Skin Grafts, versus Tissue-engineered Skin Constructs: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2023Article
- Skin grafting treatment of adolescent lower limb avulsion injury.Frontiers in surgery · 2022Review
- Comparative study on the donor site aesthetic outcome between epidermal graft and split-thickness skin graft.International wound journal · 2019Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Autologous skin grafting is an important method for wound coverage; however, it is an invasive procedure and can cause donor site morbidity. Epidermal grafting (EG) enables epidermal transfer to wounds with minimal donor site morbidity. However, data to date have been heterogeneous. This study aims to synthesise the current evidence on EG for wound healing to establish the efficacy of this surgical technique. A comprehensive search in the MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL databases was conducted. The endpoints assessed were proportion of wounds healed and mean wound-healing time. This systematic review was conducted and reported according to the Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) guidelines. We identified 1568 articles, of which seven articles were included in this review - a total of 209 wounds in 190 patients. The mean wound duration was 17·06 weeks (95% CI 8·57-25·55). Of these, 71·5% (95% CI 56·7-84·2) of the wounds achieved complete healing. Mean time for complete wound healing was 5·53 weeks (95% CI 3·18-7·88). The mean donor site healing time was 7·48 days (95% CI 4·83-10·13), with no reported donor site morbidity. The current data are small and lack level 1 evidence.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.