Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30430049›Full record

ArticleCureus2018

Medical Needling: Effect on Skin Erythema of Hypertrophic Burn Scars.

Kay-Hendrik Busch, Antigona Aliu, Nicole Walezko, Matthias Aust

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cureus, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 29 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Fractional COLasers in medical science · 2025
    Trial
  3. Efficacy of a novel microneedle patch for rejuvenation of the nasolabial fold.Skin research and technology : official journal of International Society for Bioengineering and the Skin (ISBS) [and] International Society for Digital Imaging of Skin (ISDIS) [and] International Society for Skin Imaging (ISSI) · 2022
    Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Microneedling for the Treatment of Scars: An Update for Clinicians.Clinical, cosmetic and investigational dermatology · 2020
    Review
  13. A Combined Approach for Fast Nanofat Microneedling.Journal of cutaneous and aesthetic surgery
    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

4 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Kay-Hendrik BuschWaldkrankenhaus Bonn, Johanniter Kliniken Bonn, Bonn, DEU.
Antigona AliuMedical Faculty, Heinrich-Heine-University, Bonn, DEU.
Nicole WalezkoAnästhesiologie, Marienhospital Bonn, Bonn, DEU.
Matthias AustPlastic Surgery, Waldkrankenhaus Bonn, Bonn, DEU.
Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf · DEJohanniter-Krankenhaus Bonn · DESt. Marien-Hospital Bonn · DEWaldkrankenhaus Protestant Hospital · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background Burn scars frequently tend to have pathological discolorations, which is manifested in the development of persistent erythema. Affected people suffer from psychological and physiological issues when they are restricted or rejected in their daily life. In this context, medical needling seems to be an efficient therapy for erythematous scars with a relatively low-risk rate of postoperative complications. Study research has already shown significant improvements in the scar quality with reference to the parameters "moisture and transepidermal water loss." Clinical data is up-to-date and provides an innovative therapy outcome of scar treatment with medical needling. Objective The aim of our study was to examine the influence of medical needling on the pathological and persistent erythema of hypertrophic burn scars. By means of reliable measurement methods, we were able to prove positive and sustainable outcomes for normal and healthy skin. The patient cohort included 20 patients with an average age of 34.63 years. Our examinations involved scars that were at least two years old and had healed by secondary intent. Every scar showed the pathological values of persistent erythema according to the participation requirements. Methods For the practical implementation of medical needling or percutaneous collagen induction (PCI), we used a roller covered with needles of 3 mm length. The needling device is rolled over the scar alternatively in a vertical, horizontal, and diagonal orientation. Multiple micro-wounds at a close distance cause intradermal bleeding, which evokes modified skin regeneration provoked by the effects of medical needling. Every patient has been followed up for 12 months postoperatively. Further on, valid results have been evaluated objectively as well as subjectively by the patient and observer. Results Our study has shown that persistent erythema of hypertrophic scars can be considered as an indication of PCI. The needling procedure influences vascularization by stimulating angiogenesis in the post-needling wound healing cascade. As the method is based on percutaneous collagen induction, the synthesis of collagen improves the vital thickness of the epidermis, which is directly associated with less transparency. Examined scars showed a significant reduction of erythema and were less reddened after treatment. Based on the outcomes of objective measurements, medical needling achieves a normalization of the skin color and an adjustment to healthy skin after repetitive treatments. Conclusion Medical needling seems to be a suitable therapy approach for treating erythematous, hypertrophic burn scars.

Indexed as

epidermal thicknesshypertrophic burn scarsmedical needlingpathological persistent erythemavascularization

Identifiers

PMID30430049
PMCPMC6219864
OpenAlexW2890310885

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.