[Clinical application and curative effect observation of follicular unit extraction and transplantation in the treatment of cicatricial alopecia].

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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.

1. [Clinical effects of autologous follicular unit extraction transplantation in the treatment of small area secondary cicatricial alopecia after burns].Zhonghua shao shang yu chuang mian xiu fu za zhi · 2022
   Observational
2. [Clinical effects of follicle unit extraction transplantation combined with recombinant bovine basic fibroblast growth factor and minoxidil in the treatment of secondary cicatricial alopecia].Zhonghua shao shang za zhi = Zhonghua shaoshang zazhi = Chinese journal of burns · 2021
   Observational

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

Authors and funding

8 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Funding

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as