ArticleInternational wound journal2019
Comparative study on the donor site aesthetic outcome between epidermal graft and split-thickness skin graft.
Article in International wound journal, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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.
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, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- A prospective analysis of the efficacy of phase II autologous skin grafting on deep second‑degree burns on the dorsum of the hand.Experimental and therapeutic medicine · 2024Article
- A Comprehensive Review of Evaluating Donor Site Morbidity and Scar Outcomes in Skin Transfer Techniques.Cureus · 2024Review
- Article
- Efficacy and safety of a dual-scan protocol for carbon dioxide laser in the treatment of split-thickness skin graft contraction in a red Duroc pig model.Burns & trauma · 2021Article
- Comparative study on the donor site aesthetic outcome between epidermal graft and split-thickness skin graft.International wound journal · 2019Article
- Skin Extension by Multiple Incisions (SEMI).In vivo (Athens, Greece)Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Donor site aesthetic outcomes of epidermal graft (EG) vs split-thickness skin graft (SSG) have yet to be objectively compared. Here, we evaluate donor site healing using a validated scar assessment tool and digital colorimetric technique, which compares colour in a consistent and objective manner. Ten patients (SSG (n = 5) and EG (n = 5)) were included. Donor site scarring was evaluated using the Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS) at Week 6 and Month 3. Colorimetric measurement was performed at Weeks 3 and 6 and Month 3. The mean donor site healing time for EG was significantly shorter (EG: 4.6 days (95% c.i. 3.8-5.3), SSG: 16.8 days (95% c.i. 13.3-20.1) (P = 0.003)). The VSS scores of the EG donor site were lower at Week 6 and Month 3(P < 0.001). The colour match between the donor site and surrounding skin for EG was better compared with SSG at all time points and was almost identical to their surrounding healthy skin at Month 3. This study is the first to objectively measure the clinical appearance of the EG donor site against SSG. EG donor site has faster healing with excellent scarring and good colour match with its surrounding normal skin at all time points compared with SSG.
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.