ArticleClinical, cosmetic and investigational dermatology2023
Clinical Observation of Sequential Laser Therapy Combined with Tension Reducer for Postoperative Tension Incision Scar Growth.
Article in Clinical, cosmetic and investigational dermatology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Personalized prediction model for scar response after radionuclide therapy: development and validation in a Chinese cohort.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To investigate the clinical effectiveness of laser and secure wound-closure system (Tension reducer) in the treatment of postoperative scarring after tension incision. Methods: A retrospectively observational study was conducted. Twenty-six patients who underwent surgical treatment in our department between June 2017 and December 2021 were selected, and those treated with laser and tension reducer were treated as a combined treatment group, and those treated with laser were treated as a conventional treatment group. Fifteen patients in the conventional group were treated with the pulsed dye laser and CO Results: The scar thickness, scar hardness and modified Vancouver scar scale of 1.25 (0.14, 1.90) mm, 31.80 (21.00, 37.20) HA, (6.00 ± 2.17) in patients in the combined treatment group were less than those of patients in the conventional treatment group of 5.50 (4.00, 11.50) mm, 42.60 (32.50, 47.00) HA, (8.25±1.91), (Z=2.883, 2.718, t=2.904, p<0.05). The scar width and pruritus score in the combined treatment group, were 8.00 (5.00, 18.00) mm and 0 (0, 1) respectively, while the scar score and pruritus score in the conventional treatment group, were 5.50 (4.00, 11.50) mm respectively, with no statistically significant difference between the two groups. The complication rate was 55% in the combined treatment group and no adverse reactions occurred in the control group. Conclusion: Sequential laser combined with tension reducer treatment can effectively inhibit the proliferation of postoperative tension incision scar.
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.