ArticleDermatology research and practice2024
Molecular Biological Verification of the Healing Effect of Biphasic Microcurrent Electrical Stimulation in Model Rats of Skin Abrasion.
Article in Dermatology research and practice, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In this study, we investigated the effect of biphasic microcurrent electrical stimulation (b-MES) on the epidermal healing process using a rat model of skin abrasion. We analyzed the expression levels of growth factors [fibroblast growth factor 2 (FGF2) and epidermal growth factor (EGF)] and keratin subtypes (K10) in both the b-MES and control groups at different time points after wounding. The b-MES group showed a significantly accelerated healing process of the epithelial tissue, resulting in more consistent healing as compared to the control group. A molecular biological analysis showed that the FGF2 mRNA expression level on Day 2 after wounding was significantly higher in the b-MES group, whereas the EGF mRNA expression level on Days 1, 2, and 4 after wounding was significantly lower in the b-MES group. Additionally, the K10 mRNA expression level on Days 1 and 2 after wounding was significantly higher in the b-MES group. Our study findings suggest that b-MES facilitates wound healing by regulating the growth factors. However, the precise mechanisms underlying these effects remain to be fully elucidated. Further research is needed to fully understand the therapeutic potential of b-MES and its applications in clinical setting. Clinically, m-MES requires shunting due to residual electrical charge at the application site. However, b-MES alternates polarity, leaving no charge at the site of application. Therefore, b-MES also has the advantage of being safer and allowing treatment for longer periods of time.
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.