ReviewBMC musculoskeletal disorders2023
Reporting of scar outcomes in the hand and wrist; a state-of-the-art literature review.
Review in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2023. 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Key Outcomes for Evaluating Hand and Wrist Scars: A Nationwide Survey of Clinicians in Saudi Arabia.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Article
- Surgical scar management - an evaluation of surgical techniques.Medicine and pharmacy reports · 2024Review
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 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesThe aim of this literature review was to synthesise and report current practice in evaluation and reporting of scar outcomes in hand and wrist clinical research.
methodsA systematic search from inception to 2022 was conducted using three electronic databases. English language randomized controlled trials and observational cohort studies reporting standardised scar outcome measures and/or scar symptoms, appearance, impairment, function, or mental health outcomes in patients with hand and wrist scars were included. Two independent reviewers determined study eligibility and performed data extraction of a priori identified scar outcome domains. Data analysis included descriptive statistics and identification of discordance in taxonomy.
resultsFifty-nine studies were included. Elective surgery cohorts were the most frequently included clinical population (n = 28; 47%) followed by burns (n = 16; 27%). Six different standardised scar outcome measures were reported by 25% of studies however only 7% of studies utilised a patient-reported measure. Scar symptoms were the most frequently reported outcome domain (81%); but taxonomy was incongruous, constructs lacked working definitions required for generalisability and outcome measurement was variable and unreported. Nineteen different measures of scar appearance and structure were reported by 30 (51%) of studies however only nine (23%) were patient-reported. Seven different hand function PROMs were reported by 25 (43%) studies. Person-centred domains including scar acceptability (12%), mental health impact (5%), and social participation (4%) were rarely reported.
conclusionsThis review highlights that evaluation and reporting of hand and wrist scar outcomes is not standardised, assessment methods and measures are under-reported and there is discordance in taxonomy. Evaluation is not person-centred, rather it is dependent on clinician assessment. Domains including scar acceptability, mental health, and social participation are rarely addressed. A stakeholder consensus derived hand and wrist scar core outcome measurement set will promote standardisation and underpin improvements in clinical research quality, transparency, and rigour.
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.