Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28566676›Full record

ArticleMedical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research2017

Comparing the Curative Efficacy of Different Skin Grafting Methods for Third-Degree Burn Wounds.

Guozhen Gao, Wenjun Li, Xiangjun Chen, Sha Liu, Dexiong Yan, Xingwei Yao, Dezhi Han, Hao Dong

Open access · hybridAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 25% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Guozhen GaoDepartment of Burn and Plastic Surgery, The 253rd Hospital of PLA, Hohhot, Inner Mongolia, China (mainland).
Wenjun LiDepartment of Cardiology, The 253rd Hospital of PLA, Hohhot, Inner Mongolia, China (mainland).
Xiangjun ChenDepartment of Burn and Plastic Surgery, The 253rd Hospital of PLA, Hohhot, Inner Mongolia, China (mainland).
Sha LiuDepartment of Burn and Plastic Surgery, The 253rd Hospital of PLA, Hohhot, Inner Mongolia, China (mainland).
Dexiong YanDepartment of Burn and Plastic Surgery, The 253rd Hospital of PLA, Hohhot, Inner Mongolia, China (mainland).
Xingwei YaoDepartment of Burn and Plastic Surgery, The 253rd Hospital of PLA, Hohhot, Inner Mongolia, China (mainland).
Dezhi HanDepartment of Burn and Plastic Surgery, The 253rd Hospital of PLA, Hohhot, Inner Mongolia, China (mainland).
Hao DongDepartment of Burn and Plastic Surgery, The 253rd Hospital of PLA, Hohhot, Inner Mongolia, China (mainland).
Fourth Hospital of Inner Mongolia · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND Our research purpose was to compare the curative efficacy of different skin grafting methods for treating third-degree burn wounds. MATERIAL AND METHODS A total of 105 patients with third-degree burns were involved in this study. The burn wounds of these patients were treated using three different methods: Meek skin grafting, Stamp skin grafting, and Microskin grafting. Patients treated with different methods were placed in different groups. The skin graft survival rate, skin graft fusion time, wound healing time, total time of surgery, and 1% total body surface area (TBSA) treatment costs in each group were evaluated during and after the grafting procedures. After the operations, patients were followed up for 3 to 18 months in order to evaluate the postoperative outcomes. RESULTS The skin graft survival rate was significantly higher in the Meek group compared to the rates in the Stamp and Microskin groups (both P<0.01). In addition, the skin graft fusion time, wound healing time, and 1% TBSA treatment costs were significantly lower in the Meek group compared to those in the Stamp and Microskin groups (both P<0.01). Furthermore, the Meek group exhibited better results with respect to curative efficacy, scarring status, and joint activity in comparison to the other two groups (both P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS The Meek skin grafting method showed better clinical efficacy for treating large wound areas in third-degree burn patients compared to the Stamp and Microskin skin grafting methods.

Indexed as

AdultBurnsCicatrixFemaleFollow-Up StudiesGraft SurvivalHumansMaleMiddle AgedPostoperative PeriodSkinSkin TransplantationTime FactorsTreatment OutcomeWound Healing

Identifiers

PMID28566676
PMCPMC5464767
OpenAlexW2621362842

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.