ArticleInternational wound journal2017
Treatment of standardised wounds with pure epidermal micrografts generated with an automated device.
Article 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 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Systematic review and meta-analysis of the use of micrografting technology in humans.The Journal of international medical research · 2025Pooled it
- Growth factors IGF-1 and KGF and adipose-derived stem cells promote migration and viability of primary human keratinocytes in anFrontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Reconstruction of composite defects of the scalp and neurocranium-a treatment algorithm from local flaps to combined AV loop free flap reconstruction.World journal of surgical oncology · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In this study, we analysed the effects of pure epidermal micrografts generated with an automated device in a standardised human wound model. Epidermal micrografts were harvested using an automated device. Micrografts were then transplanted onto split-skin donor sites. The target area was only partially covered with transplants to create an intra-individual control area. Wounds were evaluated by subjective assessment as well as measurements with combined laser and white light spectroscopy and cutometry. The epidermal graft sites remained completely stable, whereas control sites offered partially unstable and blistering areas. Statistically, no measurable difference in the speed of initial reepithelialisation could be shown. However, there was an increased pliability and softness of the treated areas that correlated with the subjective impression of both investigators and patients. There was a significantly higher relative haemoglobin concentration, measurable in treated and untreated areas at 4 weeks and 6 months. Cutometry showed no differences in skin properties between treated and untreated areas. This study shows an effect of epidermal micrografts in a standardised human wound model and supports the positive impact of keratinocytes on early wound healing as described in literature. Long-term effects of epidermal grafting deserve further studies.
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.