ArticleHealth science reports2024
Comparison of Ba-Hao burn ointment gauze and petrolatum gauze in split graft donor site healing: A randomized, prospective, and self-control study.
Article in Health science reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- An Investigation into the Structure of Wound-Healing Materials, Chemical Materials, Nature-Based Materials, and Wound Monitoring.Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Comparison of Ba-Hao burn ointment gauze and petrolatum gauze in split graft donor site healing: A randomized, prospective, and self-control study.Health science reports · 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
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Aims: To assess patient comfort, wound healing, and scarring at the 6-month follow-up of split-skin graft donor sites treated with Ba-Hao burn ointment (BHBO) gauze, a compound preparation of traditional Chinese medicine since 1970s, compared with petrolatum gauze. Methods: Thirty patients admitted to the Department of Burns of the First Affiliated Hospital of Anhui Medical University between September 2021 and September 2022 participated in this randomized, prospective, self-control clinical study. After harvesting the split skin, donor sites were divided into two parts along the midline. BHBO gauze was applied to half of the donor wounds, and petrolatum gauze was applied to the other half. The wound healing time, pain scores on the postoperative Days 3, 6, and 9, and Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS) score at the 6-month follow-up were assessed. Results: The wound healing time was significantly shorter in the BHBO group than in the control group (10.07 ± 1.48 days vs. 11.50 ± 1.74 days, Conclusion: BHBO resulted in faster donor-site healing, reduced postoperative pain, and improved scar quality at the 6-month follow-up than petrolatum gauze alone.
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.