Trial reportMedicine2018
Comparison of Leukosan SkinLink with surgical suture for traumatic laceration repair: A randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in Medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02333877 (Comparison of Skinlink With Suture for ED Patients), which is not on this map. Cited by 2 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.
Comparison of Skinlink With Suture for ED Patients: a Randomized Controlled Trial
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Crosslinker-Free, Printable Alginate-Boronic Acid Hydrogel Adhesive with Enhanced Mechanical Performance for Soft Tissue Fixation.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLeukosan SkinLink (LS), which combines non-woven textile strips and tissue adhesive, offers the advantage of atraumatic treatment while effectively shortening the procedure time. We hypothesized that wound closure would be faster with LS than with surgical suture (SS) and the wound infection and dehiscence would be similar.
methodsA prospective, open label, single-center, randomized controlled trial was performed. Between November 2014 and April 2016, 49 patients with traumatic lacerations who presented to the emergency department were eligible for study inclusion.
resultsThe mean wound closure time was significantly lower in the LS group than in the SS group (1.48 ± 0.2 seconds vs 8.8 ± 3.6 minutes, P < .001). After adjusting the wound closure time according to the lacerations length, the time remained significantly lower in the LS group than in the SS group (1.0 ± 0.8 seconds vs 5.03 ± 2.5minutes, P < .001). During follow-up for 14 days, no significant differences in dehiscence and wound infection were observed between the 2 groups.
conclusionWound closure was approximately 4minutes faster with LS and there were no differences in wound infection and dehiscence rates. Thus, the LS could be used as a timesaving suture technique for acute traumatic lacerations in emergency department (ED).
trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT02333877.
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.