ReviewHong Kong journal of occupational therapy : HKJOT2017
A Systematic Review on the Effect of Mechanical Stretch on Hypertrophic Scars after Burn Injuries.
Review in Hong Kong journal of occupational therapy : HKJOT, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 3 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, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- From mechanics to mobilization: a biomechanically-informed rehabilitation framework for cesarean-related scars.BMC women's health · 2026Pooled it
- A systematic review of in vivo stretching regimens on inflammation and its relevance to translational yoga research.PloS one · 2022Pooled it
- Physical Management of Scar Tissue: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of alternative and complementary medicine (New York, N.Y.) · 2020Pooled it
- Elliptical Lipoaspirate Activation Versus Coleman Technique: A Randomized Double-Blinded Clinical Trial on Adipose Tissue Grafting for Scar Treatment.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2025Trial
- Optimising Scar Management Intervention in the Case of a Head-and-Neck Burn for a Patient with a Learning Disability.European burn journal · 2024Article
- Autologous nanofat harvested from donor site of full-thickness skin or skin flap grafting for the treatment of early postburn scarring: a case series.Scars, burns & healingArticle
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 at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE/
backgroundTo review the effect of mechanical stretch on hypertrophic scars after burn injuries.
methodsA systematic review of all controlled trials related to the effect of mechanical stretch on post burn hypertrophic scars was conducted. Studies of conservative scar managements that applied mechanical forces parallel to the scar surface, including stretching exercise, massage, and splinting, were appraised. Eligible studies published in English between 1995 and 2016 were extracted from The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, CINAHL, Science direct, SPORTDiscus, and Physiotherapy Evidence Database Scale (PEDro). The journals were further screened with inclusion and exclusion criteria. PEDro was selected for further analysis and appraisal.
resultsThere were 853 articles identified. After a standardized screening mechanism stipulated, only nine full-text articles were selected for critical appraisal using PEDro. There were five articles of high quality, two of fair quality, and two of poor quality. Detailed training regime and outcomes of nine studies were summarised, including two studies with stretching exercise, six studies with massage, and one study with splinting. The physical parameters of scar assessments and the range of motion on affected areas were compared.
conclusionFrom extensive literature search, there was no strong evidence indicating the positive effect of mechanical stretch using stretching exercise, massage, or splinting on hypertrophic scars. A firm conclusion cannot be drawn for the discrepancy of outcome measures and varied effectiveness. Most of the included studies lacked objective evaluation or control group for comparison. Further high quality studies with larger sample size and using standardized measurements are needed.
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.