Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31509319›Full record

Trial reportWound repair and regeneration : official publication of the Wound Healing Society [and] the European Tissue Repair Society2020

Fish skin grafts compared to human amnion/chorion membrane allografts: A double-blind, prospective, randomized clinical trial of acute wound healing.

Robert S Kirsner, David J Margolis, Baldur T Baldursson, Kristin Petursdottir, Olafur B Davidsson, Dot Weir, John C Lantis

Open access · hybridAbstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Wound repair and regeneration : official publication of the Wound Healing Society [and] the European Tissue Repair Society, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
5.1field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

35 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 69 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Trends in the Treatment of Chronic Wounds.Current medicinal chemistry · 2025
    Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

7 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.

Robert S KirsnerDr Phillip Frost Department of Dermatology and Cutaneous Surgery, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, Florida.
David J MargolisDepartment of Dermatology, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Baldur T BaldurssonDepartment of Dermatology, Landspitali University Hospital of Iceland, Reykjavik, Iceland.ORCID 0000-0002-5455-2324
Kristin PetursdottirDepartment of Dermatology, Landspitali University Hospital of Iceland, Reykjavik, Iceland.
Olafur B DavidssonMathematics Division of the Science Institute, University of Iceland, Reykjavik, Iceland.
Dot WeirCatholic Health Advanced Wound Healing Centers, Buffalo, New York.
John C LantisDivision of Vascular/Endovascular Surgery, Mount Sinai St. Luke's-West Hospitals, Icahn School of Medicine, New York, New York.
National University Hospital of Iceland · ISSt. Joseph's Hospital · USUniversity of Iceland · ISUniversity of Miami · USUniversity of Pennsylvania · USWound Healing Society · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Chronic, nonhealing wounds consume a great deal of healthcare resources and are a major public health problem, associated with high morbidity and significant economic costs. Skin grafts are commonly used to facilitate wound closure. The grafts can come from the patient's own skin (autograft), a human donor (allograft), or from a different species (xenograft). A fish skin xenograft from cold-water fish (Atlantic cod, Gadus morhua) is a relatively recent option that shows promising preclinical and clinical results in wound healing. Chronic wounds vary greatly in etiology and nature, requiring large cohorts for effective comparison between therapeutic alternatives. In this study, we attempted to imitate the status of a freshly debrided chronic wound by creating acute full-thickness wounds, 4 mm in diameter, on healthy volunteers to compare two materials frequently used to treat chronic wounds: fish skin and dHACM. The purpose is to give an indication of the efficacy of the two therapeutic alternatives in the treatment of chronic wounds in a simple, standardized, randomized, controlled, double-blind study. All volunteers were given two identical punch biopsy wounds, one of which was treated with a fish skin graft and the other with dehydrated human amnion/chorion membrane allograft (dHACM). In the study, 170 wounds were treated (85 wounds per group). The primary endpoint was defined as time to heal (full epithelialization) by blinded assessment at days 14, 18, 21, 25, and 28. The superiority hypothesis was that the fish skin grafts would heal the wounds faster than the dHACM. To evaluate the superiority hypothesis, a mixed Cox proportional hazard model was used. Wounds treated with fish skin healed significantly faster (hazard ratio 2.37; 95% confidence interval: (1.75-3.22; p = 0.0014) compared with wounds treated with dHACM. The results show that acute biopsy wounds treated with fish skin grafts heal faster than wounds treated with dHACM.

Indexed as

Biological DressingsRe-EpithelializationAdultAmnionAnimalsChorionDouble-Blind MethodFemaleGadus morhuaHealthy VolunteersHumansMaleMiddle AgedProportional Hazards ModelsSkinTime Factors

Identifiers

PMID31509319
PMCPMC6972637
OpenAlexW2972755419

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.