Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38244097›Full record

ArticleArchives of dermatological research2024

Practical management of hypertrophic scarring: the mayo clinic experience.

Julia Tomtschik, Nimay Anand, Samyd S Bustos, Jorys Martinez-Jorge, Saranya P Wyles

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Archives of dermatological research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 14% of its field
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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. The Role of Biomechanical Forces in the Formation and Treatment of Pathological Scars.Clinical, cosmetic and investigational dermatology · 2024
    Review
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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Julia TomtschikDepartment of Dermatology, Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street S.W., Rochester, MN, 55905, USA. Tomtschik.Julia@Mayo.edu.
Nimay AnandDepartment of Dermatology, Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street S.W., Rochester, MN, 55905, USA.
Samyd S BustosDivision of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Jorys Martinez-JorgeDivision of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Saranya P WylesDepartment of Dermatology, Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street S.W., Rochester, MN, 55905, USA.
Mayo Clinic · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Hypertrophic scarring is a potential consequence of wound healing that causes functional and aesthetic disability. Common treatments include intralesional pharmacotherapy (e.g., triamcinolone), surgical excision, and energy-based laser devices. While numerous treatment methods have been described for hypertrophic scarring, an optimal treatment strategy has yet to be established given variability in clinical presentation. This study aims to identify patient- and provider-preferred treatment patterns. This is a single-center, retrospective study of adult patients that developed post-surgical hypertrophic scarring between 2007 and 2017. Specifically, trends in procedural management for hypertrophic scarring among this cohort were examined. A total of 442 procedures (intralesional steroid injection, surgical excision, laser-based treatment) were identified in 218 patients with a clinical diagnosis of hypertrophic scarring. Approximately 73% were female; 87% were Caucasian. The median age at first procedure was 45.6 years (SD = 17.4). The most frequent anatomical locations for procedures were the trunk (n = 242; 54.8%), followed by head/neck (n = 86; 19.5%), upper extremities (n = 67; 15.2%), and lower extremities (n = 45; 10.2%). Procedural therapies included intralesional steroid injection (n = 221; 50%), surgical excision (n = 112; 25.3%) and laser (fractional non-ablative laser vs. pulsed dye laser; n = 109; 24.5%). Treatment modality varied by stage of treatment, scar anatomical location, and scar size. This single-center series of patients with hypertrophic scarring highlights a patient-centered management approach and offers clinical guidelines for provider-patient shared decision making.

Indexed as

Cicatrix, HypertrophicAdultFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesSteroidsTreatment OutcomeWound HealingSteroidsHypertrophic scarLaser therapyScar reductionScar treatment

Identifiers

PMID38244097
OpenAlexW4391052584

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.