ArticleAnnals of medicine and surgery (2012)2021
Post-skin incision scar tissue assessment using patient and observer scar assessment scales: A randomised controlled trial.
Article in Annals of medicine and surgery (2012), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluating Effects of Skin Needling Treatment on Visible Changes and Elasticity of Scars Using High-Frequency Ultrasound, CutometerJournal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Article
- Burn hypertrophy scarring assessment based on patient and observer scar assessment scale (POSAS).Annals of burns and fire disasters · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe scalpel was once the gold standard for surgical incisions. Electrosurgery has started to supplant scalpels but is not yet acceptable for skin incisions due to the risk of burns and deeper injury relative to the scalpels' neat incision with less tissue damage. The unnecessary burden of excessive scar formation makes comparing these two methods challenging. Therefore, this study aims to compare post-incision skin scarring created after monopolar electrosurgery and scalpel surgery, and evaluate the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS) suitability for assessing skin incision scars by comparing patients' and observers' scores.
methodsThis self-controlled study involved patients undergoing elective and emergency skin surgery procedures. A singular wound site was created using two incision methods (monopolar electrosurgery and scalpel) simultaneously. Post-incision scar tissue formation was evaluated using the POSAS, a subjective scar assessment tool that involved patients self-reporting on pain, itching, color, thickness flexibility, and surface relief. Observer-rated vascularity, pigmentation, thickness, flexibility, and surface relief both using a 5-point Likert-type scale. We performed this assessment three months post-surgery, and the results were analyzed by a battery of statistical tests and linear mixed models.
resultsTwenty patients were included in this study. Data analyzed using the paired
conclusionScar tissue from skin incisions made by monopolar electrosurgery were indistinguishable from those created with a scalpel. The POSAS instrument is an acceptable means of assessing scar formation on the skin.
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.