ReviewHeliyon2024
Natural products for the treatment of hypertrophic scars: Preclinical and clinical studies.
Review in Heliyon, 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.
- Hydrogel microneedles functioning in pathological surroundings: where soft materials overcome hard scars.Materials today. Bio · 2026Review
- Dihydromyricetin attenuates fibrosis-associated features of hypertrophic scar with accompanying changes in PI3K/AKT/mTOR-related signaling.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026Article
- Causal correlation between inflammatory cytokines and hypertrophic scar based on two-sample Mendelian randomization.Journal, genetic engineering & biotechnology · 2025Article
- Comparative effectiveness of plant-derived compounds in keloid management: a review.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2025Review
- Epigallocatechin-3-gallate therapeutic potential in human diseases: molecular mechanisms and clinical studies.Molecular biomedicine · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Hypertrophic scarring (HS) is a complication of wound healing that causes physiological and psychological distress in patients. However, the possible mechanism underlying HS is not fully understood, and there is no gold standard for its treatment. Natural products are more effective, economical, convenient, and safe than existing drugs, and they have a wide application prospect. However, there is a lack of literature on this topic, so we reviewed in vivo, in vitro, and clinical studies and screened natural products showing beneficial effects on HS that can become potential therapeutic agents for HS to fill in the gaps in the field. In addition, we discussed the drug delivery systems related to these natural products and their mechanisms in the treatment of HS. Generally speaking, natural products inhibit inflammation, myofibroblast activation, angiogenesis, and collagen accumulation by targeting interleukins, tumor necrosis factor-α, vascular endothelial growth factors, platelet-derived growth factors, and matrix metalloproteinases, so as to play an anti-HS effects of natural products are attributed to their anti-inflammatory, anti-proliferative, anti-angiogenesis, and pro-apoptotic (enhancing apoptosis and autophagy) roles, thus treating HS. We also screened the potential therapeutic targets of these natural compounds for HS through network pharmacology and constructed a protein-protein interaction (PPI) network, which may provide clues for the pharmacological mechanism of natural products in treating this disease and the development and application of drugs.
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.