Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37529248›Full record

ReviewJournal of tissue engineering

New insights into balancing wound healing and scarless skin repair.

Shengxi Zhou, Mengbo Xie, Jingjing Su, Bingjie Cai, Jingan Li, Kun Zhang

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of tissue engineering. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 72 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
72citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

72 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Evaluation of Nile Tilapia (ACS biomaterials science & engineering · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Advancements in Functional Polymeric Scaffolds for Scar-Free Skin Regeneration.Polymer science & technology (Washington, D.C.) · 2026
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Article

12 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Shengxi ZhouSchool of Life Science, Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, Henan, P. R. China.
Mengbo XieSchool of Life Science, Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, Henan, P. R. China.
Jingjing SuSchool of Life Science, Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, Henan, P. R. China.
Bingjie CaiDepartment of Dermatology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, Henan, P. R. China.
Jingan LiSchool of Materials Science and Engineering, Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, Henan, P. R. China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8311-1739
Kun ZhangSchool of Life Science, Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, Henan, P. R. China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Scars caused by skin injuries after burns, wounds, abrasions and operations have serious physical and psychological effects on patients. In recent years, the research of scar free wound repair has been greatly expanded. However, understanding the complex mechanisms of wound healing, in which various cells, cytokines and mechanical force interact, is critical to developing a treatment that can achieve scarless wound healing. Therefore, this paper reviews the types of wounds, the mechanism of scar formation in the healing process, and the current research progress on the dual consideration of wound healing and scar prevention, and some strategies for the treatment of scar free wound repair.

Indexed as

extracellular matrixfibroblastsscarskin regenerationWound healing

Identifiers

PMID37529248
PMCPMC10388637

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.