Trial reportInternational wound journal2022
A new technique of suturing using adhesive skin closure for uncooperative patients.
Trial report in International wound journal, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- A new technique of suturing using adhesive skin closure for uncooperative patients.International wound journal · 2022Trial
- Awareness on the management strategy of stitch abscess among dental students.Journal of advanced pharmaceutical technology & research · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Open wounds are usually closed with suture. However, young patients often do not cooperate and prevent proper suture placement. Young patients are often terrified of mild pain and wholly uncooperative, which is why we introduce this timesaving, less painful, more aesthetic technique of placing and removing stitches. 104 patients with facial lacerations aged 5 to 15 years were treated at a single center from May 2019 to March 2021. Patients were randomly assigned equally to a simple interrupted suture group (the SI group) or a continuous locking with Steri-Strip group (the CS group). Suture times, times for stitch removal, pain scores at stitch removal and mature scar scores were evaluated. Suture and stitch removal times were significantly shorter, and pain scores at stitch removal and observer scar assessment scale scores were lower in the CS group. Patient scar assessment scale score was non-significantly lower in the SI group. This study shows that the novel continuous locking with the Steri-Strip technique is easier and quicker to perform, causes less pain when removing stitches, provides better aesthetic results than the simple interrupted suture technique and suggests the continuous locking with Steri-Strip technique would be very useful for uncooperative young patients.
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.