ArticleInternational wound journal2023
Splint-free line drawing model: An innovative method for excisional wound models.
Article in International wound journal, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Stem cell-derived extracellular vesicles and artificial nanovesicles: a translational framework for cell-free wound repair.NPJ Regenerative medicine · 2026Review
- Therapeutic Potential of Bovine Amniotic Membrane in Wound Healing: Insights from a Mouse Model.Cells · 2025Article
- Dermal fibroblast-derived extracellular matrix (ECM) synergizes with keratinocytes in promoting re-epithelization and scarless healing of skin wounds: Towards optimized skin tissue engineering.Bioactive materials · 2025Article
- Radiation-induced skin regeneration: A comparative efficacy and safety analysis of alpha, beta, and gamma modalities in murine models.Veterinary world · 2025Article
- Splint-free line drawing model: An innovative method for excisional wound models.International wound journal · 2023Article
- The Wound Reporting in Animal and Human Preclinical Studies (WRAHPS) Guidelines.Wound repair and regeneration : official publication of the Wound Healing Society [and] the European Tissue Repair SocietyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The physiological phenomenon of wound contraction in mice cannot completely imitate the process of human skin regeneration, which is primarily attributed to reepithelialisation. As such, excisional wound models in mice are considered to be imperfect comparisons. This study aimed to enhance the correlation of mouse excisional wound models with that of humans, and to offer more practical and accurate ways to record and measure wound areas. We present evidence that simple excisional wounds produce a robust and stable wound model by comparing splint-free and splint groups. We monitored reepithelialisation and contraction in the C57BL/6J mouse excision wound model at different time points and prove that excisional wounds heal by both contraction and reepithelialisation. Some parameters were measured and a formula was used to calculate the area of wound reepithelialisation and contraction. In our results, reepithelialisation accounted for 46% of the wound closure of full-thickness excisional wounds. In conclusion, excisional wound models can be used as wound-healing models and a straightforward formula may be used to determine the process of reepithelialisation over a wound bed created by a simple excisional rodent wound model.
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.