ArticleJPRAS open2022
Comparison of Glyaderm with different dermal substitute matrices in a porcine wound model.
Article in JPRAS open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Reconstruction of Various Complex Full-Thickness Skin Defects with a Biodegradable Temporising Matrix: A Case Series.European burn journal · 2025Article
- Using an acellular dermal matrix as a neuroprotective wrap-around for treating recurrent nerve entrapment syndromes: a proof of concept.Cell and tissue banking · 2025Article
- Elastogenesis in Focus: Navigating Elastic Fibers Synthesis for Advanced Dermal Biomaterial Formulation.Advanced healthcare materials · 2024Review
- Comparison of combination skin substitutes and skin grafts versus skin grafts only for treating wounds measured by Vancouver Scar Scale: A comprehensive meta-analysis.SAGE open medicine · 2024Review
- A single-stage bilayered skin reconstruction using Glyaderm® as an acellular dermal regeneration template results in improved scar quality: an intra-individual randomized controlled trial.Burns & trauma · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The closure of extensive burn wounds with widely expanded autologous split-thickness skin grafts (STSG) is associated with undesirable scar formation and contraction, due to the lack of dermis. Various materials for dermal replacement have been developed, either of xenogeneic, allogeneic or synthetic origin and are placed in the wound underneath a thin STSG in order to improve scar quality. In this study, a porcine wound model was used to compare several commercially available acellular dermal substitutes with an acellular dermal substitute prepared from glycerol preserved human skin: Glyaderm Methods: Antigenic components of the allografts were removed by incubation in the 0.06 M NaOH solution. In the first experiments, the dermal substitutes were applied to full thickness wounds and covered simultaneously with STSG. Controls were covered with STSG only. The wound healing response was analyzed for 8 weeks, both macroscopically and histologically. The Mann-Whitney U test was used for statistical analysis. In the second series of experiments, Glyaderm Results: In the first series, the inflammatory response and myofibroblast influx in Glyaderm Conclusion: Glyaderm
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.