Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39285279›Full record

ArticleBMC medical research methodology2024

Modelling wound area in studies of wound healing interventions.

Samuel I Watson, Eleni Gkini, Jon Bishop, Katie Scandrett, Indra Napit, Richard J Lilford

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Physical models of embryonic epithelial healing.PLoS computational biology · 2026
    Review
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Samuel I WatsonInstitute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK. s.i.watson@bham.ac.uk.
Eleni GkiniInstitute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK.
Jon BishopInstitute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK.
Katie ScandrettInstitute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK.
Indra NapitThe Leprosy Mission Nepal, Kathmandu, Nepal.
Richard J LilfordInstitute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK.

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/V038591/1National Institute for Health and Care Research 200132
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundExperimental studies of wound healing often use survival analysis and time to event outcomes or differences in wound area at a specific time point. However, these methods do not use a potentially large number of observations made over the course of a trial and may be inefficient. A model-based approach can leverage all trial data, but there is little guidance on appropriate models and functional forms to describe wound healing.

methodsWe derive a general statistical model and review a wide range of plausible mathematical models to describe wound healing. We identify a range of possible derived estimands and their derivation from the models. Using data from a trial of an intervention to promote ulcer healing in patients affected by leprosy that included three measurement methods repeated across the course of the study, we compare the goodness-of-fit of the models using a range of methods and estimate treatment effects and healing rate functions with the best-fitting models.

resultsOverall, we included 5,581 ulcer measurements of 1,578 unique images from 130 patients. We examined the performance of a range of models. The square root, log square root, and log quadratic models were the best fitting models across all outcome measurement methods. The estimated treatment effects magnitude and sign varied by time post-randomisation, model type, and outcome type, but across all models there was little evidence of effectiveness. The estimated effects were significantly more precise than non-parametric alternatives. For example, estimated differences from the three outcome measurements at 42-days post-randomisation were - 0.01 cm

conclusionsModel-based analyses can dramatically improve the precision of estimates but care must be taken to carefully compare and select the best fitting models. The (log) square-root model is strongly recommended reflecting advice from a century ago.

Indexed as

Wound HealingHumansLeprosyModels, StatisticalRandomised controlled trialStatistical modellingUlcerWounds

Identifiers

PMID39285279
PMCPMC11403831

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.