Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32637158›Full record

ArticleScars, burns & healing

Comparison of hypertrophic scarring on a red Duroc pig and a Guangxi Mini Bama pig.

Xiaoyu Ning, Kai Yang, Wei Shi, Chenjie Xu

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Scars, burns & healing. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 20% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Porcine Wound Models: The Gold Standard for Translational Research in Cutaneous Healing.Wound repair and regeneration : official publication of the Wound Healing Society [and] the European Tissue Repair Society
    Review
  8. 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 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Xiaoyu NingSchool of Chemical and Biomedical Engineering Nanyang Technological University, Singapore.
Kai YangSG Med International Pte Ltd., Singapore.
Wei ShiKey Laboratory of Flexible Electronics & Institute of Advanced Materials, Jiangsu National Synergetic Innovation Center for Advanced Materials Nanjing Tech University, Nanjing, Jiangsu, China.
Chenjie XuSchool of Chemical and Biomedical Engineering Nanyang Technological University, Singapore.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8278-3912
City University of Hong Kong · HKNanjing Tech University · CNNanyang Technological University · SG

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Pigs are the most promising models for the study of wound healing and hypertrophic scarring because they are anatomically and physiologically similar to human beings. The Red Duroc pig and Mini Bama pig are two swine models that have attracted a lot of attention. The aim of the present study was to examine and compare the scarring process in a red Duroc pig and a Mini Bama pig, providing knowledge for researchers and clinicians to enable them to choose the most suitable pig model for studies.

Indexed as

hypertrophic scarringMini Bama pigpig modelred Duroc pigWound healing

Identifiers

PMID32637158
PMCPMC7318807
OpenAlexW3037832561

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.