Trial reportEmergency medicine journal : EMJ2023
Evaluation of microMend wound closure device in repairing skin lacerations.
Trial report in Emergency medicine journal : EMJ, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03830515 (Evaluation of microMend Device to Close Skin Wounds Associated With Repair of Lacerations), which is not on this map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
Evaluation of microMend Device to Close Skin Wounds Associated With Repair of Lacerations
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundmicroMend, a novel microstaple skin closure device, may be able to close simple lacerations. This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility and acceptability of using microMend to close these wounds in the ED.
methodsThis was an open-label, single-arm clinical study conducted at two EDs within a large urban academic medical centre. Wounds closed with microMend underwent assessments performed at days 0, 7, 30 and 90. Photographs of treated wounds were rated by two plastic surgeons using a 100 mm visual analogue scale (VAS) and a wound evaluation scale (WES), which has a best possible score of 6. Participants rated pain during application and both participants and providers rated their satisfaction with the device.
resultsThirty-one participants were enrolled in the study: 48% were female and the mean age of participants was 45.6 (95% CI 39.1 to 52.1). The mean wound length was 2.35 cm (95% CI 1.77 to 2.92), with a range of 1-10 cm. Mean VAS and WES scores at day 90 as evaluated by two plastic surgeons were 84.1 mm (95% CI 80.2 to 87.9) and 4.91 (95% CI 4.54 to 5.29), respectively. The mean pain score with application of the devices was 7.28 mm (95% CI 2.88 to 11.68) on a scale of 0-100 mm using VAS. Local anaesthesia was used in 9 patients (29%, 95% CI 20.7 to 37.3) of participants (of whom 5 required deep sutures). Ninety per cent (90%) of participants rated their overall assessment of the device as excellent (74%) or good (16%) at day 90. There were no serious adverse events in any participants in the study.
conclusionmicroMend appears to be an acceptable alternative for closing skin lacerations in the ED, providing good cosmetic results, with high levels of satisfaction by patients and providers. Randomised trials are needed to compare microMend with other wound closure products. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03830515.
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.