ArticleBMJ open2024
Ultrasound measurement of traumatic scar and skin thickness: a scoping review of evidence across the translational pipeline of research-to-practice.
Article in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Within-Patient, Evaluator-Blinded, Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial to Assess the Efficacy of Gel Sheets in the Treatment of Hypertrophic Scar in Adult Burn Survivors.Journal of burn care & research : official publication of the American Burn Association · 2026Trial
- Evaluating Effects of Skin Needling Treatment on Visible Changes and Elasticity of Scars Using High-Frequency Ultrasound, CutometerJournal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Hypertrophic and Keloid Scar Management: Advances in Diagnosis, Perioperative Care, and Anesthetic Modulation.Cureus · 2025Review
- High-Frequency and Ultra-High-Frequency Ultrasound in Dermatologic Diseases and Aesthetic Medicine.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Review
- A PIEZO-Gated Mechanotransduction Timing Window Governs Scar Commitment in Wound Healing.Wound repair and regeneration : official publication of the Wound Healing Society [and] the European Tissue Repair SocietyReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo identify the ultrasound methods used in the literature to measure traumatic scar thickness, and map gaps in the translation of these methods using evidence across the research-to-practice pipeline.
designScoping review. DATA SOURCES: Electronic database searches of Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature and Web of Science. Grey literature searches were conducted in Google. Searches were conducted from inception (date last searched 27 May 2022). DATA EXTRACTION: Records using brightness mode (B-mode) ultrasound to measure scar and skin thickness across the research-to-practice pipeline of evidence were included. Data were extracted from included records pertaining to: methods used; reliability and measurement error; clinical, health service, implementation and feasibility outcomes; factors influencing measurement methods; strengths and limitations; and use of measurement guidelines and/or frameworks.
resultsOf the 9309 records identified, 118 were analysed (n=82 articles, n=36 abstracts) encompassing 5213 participants. Reporting of methods used was poor. B-mode, including high-frequency (ie, >20 MHz) ultrasound was the most common type of ultrasound used (n=72 records; 61% of records), and measurement of the combined epidermal and dermal thickness (n=28; 24%) was more commonly measured than the epidermis or dermis alone (n=7, 6%). Reliability of ultrasound measurement was poorly reported (n=14; 12%). The scar characteristics most commonly reported to be measured were epidermal oedema, dermal fibrosis and hair follicle density. Most records analysed (n=115; 97%) pertained to the early stages of the research-to-practice pipeline, as part of research initiatives.
conclusionsThe lack of evaluation of measurement initiatives in routine clinical practice was identified as an evidence gap. Diverse methods used in the literature identified the need for greater standardisation of ultrasound thickness measurements. Findings have been used to develop nine methodological considerations for practitioners to guide methods and reporting.
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.