ReviewJournal of evidence-based integrative medicine
Evidence of Potential Natural Products for the Management of Hypertrophic Scars.
Review in Journal of evidence-based integrative medicine. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Global trends and hotspots of natural medicines for pathological scar treatment: a visualized bibliometric analysis (2008-2025).Frontiers in medicine · 2026Pooled it
- Effect of Topically Administered Natural Compounds on Cesarean Section Healing-A Retrospective Observational Study.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Native Collagen for Surgical Wound and Scar Prevention-A Six-Case Clinical Series.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Comparative effectiveness of plant-derived compounds in keloid management: a review.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2025Review
- The PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathway in scar remodeling and keloid formation: mechanisms and therapeutic perspectives.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2025Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Hypertrophic scarring is an aberrant wound-healing response to reestablish dermal integrity after an injury and can cause significant abnormalities in physical, aesthetic, functional, and psychological symptoms, impacting the patient's quality of life. There is currently no gold standard for preventing and treating hypertrophic scars. Therefore, many researchers have attempted to search for antihypertrophic scar agents with greater efficacy and fewer side effects. Natural therapeutics are becoming attractive as potential alternative anti-scarring agents because of their high efficacy, safety, biocompatibility, low cost, and easy accessibility. This review demonstrates various kinds of natural product-based therapeutics, including onion, vitamin E, Gotu kola, green tea, resveratrol, emodin, curcumin, and others, in terms of their mechanisms of action, evidence of efficacy and safety, advantages, and disadvantages when used as anti-scarring agents. We reviewed the literature based on data from in vitro, in vivo, and clinical trials. A total of 23 clinical trials were identified in this review; most clinical trials were ranked as having uncertain results (level of evidence 2b; n = 16). Although these natural products showed beneficial effects in both in vitro and in vivo studies of potential anti-scarring agents, there was limited clinical evidence to support their efficacy due to the limited quality of the studies, with individual flaws including small sample sizes, poor randomization, and blinding, and short follow-up durations. More robust and well-designed clinical trials with large-scale and prolonged follow-up durations are required to clarify the benefits and risks of these agents.
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.