ReviewCureus2024
A Comprehensive Review of Evaluating Donor Site Morbidity and Scar Outcomes in Skin Transfer Techniques.
Review in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- RNA Coding and Transcriptional Regulation in Skin Repair: Insights from Single-Cell Profiling and Implications for Organoid-Based Regenerative Strategies.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Parallel Mechanisms for Re-Epithelialization Following Skin Cell Suspension Autograft Application: Scientific Insights into Acute Wound Healing.Journal of burn care & research : official publication of the American Burn Association · 2026Article
- Optimizing Wound Healing in Radial Forearm Donor Sites: A Comparative Study of Ulnar-Based Flap and Split-Thickness Skin Grafting.Biomedicines · 2025Article
- 3D-bioprinted urethral grafts: Revolutionizing urethral stricture treatment.Arab journal of urology · 2025Review
- Assessing Donor Site Morbidity and Impact on Quality of Life in Free Flap Microsurgery: An Overview.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Review
- Biological attributes required for epidermal regeneration: Evaluation of the next-generation autologous cell harvesting device.International wound journal · 2024Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This comprehensive review delves into the intricacies of donor site morbidity and scar outcomes in skin transfer techniques central to the field of reconstructive surgery. The review synthesizes existing literature to illuminate the multifaceted factors influencing outcomes by surveying a broad spectrum of grafting methods, from traditional autografts to cutting-edge tissue engineering approaches. Key findings underscore the complex interplay of graft characteristics, surgical techniques, and patient-specific variables. The implications for clinical practice advocate for a nuanced, patient-centered approach, incorporating emerging minimally invasive procedures and adjuvant therapies. The review concludes with recommendations for future research, emphasizing the importance of longitudinal studies, comparative analyses, patient-reported outcomes, advanced imaging techniques, and exploration of tissue engineering innovations. This synthesis advances our understanding of donor site morbidity and scar outcomes. It provides a roadmap for refining clinical protocols, ultimately enhancing the delicate balance between therapeutic efficacy and patient well-being in reconstructive surgery.
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.