ArticleFrontiers in medicine2024
Myofibroblasts reside in the middle dermis of the keloids but do not predict the response to injection therapies: a double-blinded, randomized, controlled trial.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Keloids form as a pathological response to skin wound healing, and their etiopathology is poorly understood. Myofibroblasts, which are cells transformed from normal fibroblasts, are believed to contribute to pathological scar formation in wounds. Methods: We carried out a double-blinded randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing the efficacy of intralesional 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) and triamcinolone (TAC) injections in treating keloids. A total of 43 patients with 50 keloids were treated with either intralesional TAC or 5-FU injections, and their clinical response was evaluated. Biopsies were collected before, during, and after injection therapy from the active border of a keloid. To understand the role of myofibroblasts in keloids, we conducted an immunohistochemical analysis to identify myofibroblasts [α-smooth muscle actin (αSMA)] from the biopsies. We first defined the three histologically distinct regions-superficial, middle, and deep dermis-in each keloid. Results: We then demonstrated that myofibroblasts almost exclusively exist in the middle dermis of the keloids as 80% of the cells in the middle dermis were αSMA positive. However, both the percentage of myofibroblasts as well as the area covered by them was substantially lower in the superficial and deep dermis than in the middle dermis of the keloids. Myofibroblasts do not predict the clinical response to intralesional injection therapies. There is no difference in the myofibroblast numbers in keloids or in the induced change in myofibroblasts between the responders and non-responders after treatment. Discussion: This study demonstrates that myofibroblasts reside almost exclusively in the middle dermis layer of the keloids, but their numbers do not predict the clinical response to intralesional injection therapies in the RCT.
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.