ReviewCureus2024
The Efficacy of Biodegradable Temporising Matrix for Upper Limb Reconstruction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Biomimetic Dermal Substitutes for Skin Reconstruction: Advances in Scaffold Design, Biological Integration, and Clinical Performance.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2026Review
- Article
- The Role and Efficacy of NovoSorb Biodegradable Temporizing Matrix in Complex Reconstructive Wounds: A Systematic Review.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2026Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to assess the efficacy of the biodegradable temporising matrix (BTM) (NovoSorb; PolyNovo Biomaterials Pty Ltd, Port Melbourne, Victoria, Australia) in the reconstruction of complex upper extremity wounds. The authors conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis as per the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines assessing the efficacy of BTM in complex upper extremity wound reconstruction. The primary outcome measures were successful BTM integration and the proportion of wounds healed. Secondary outcomes analysed were the average time from BTM application to its integration, the proportion of wounds healed by secondary intention, graft take over BTM, as well as the incidence of infection. The rate of complications as well as scarring and outcomes in upper limb function were also evaluated. The inclusion criteria were met by 12 studies consisting of 164 complex upper extremity wounds. Successful BTM integration was reported in 92.1% (p<0.001) of cases, coupled with wound healing achieved in 90% (p<0.001) of cases overall. The average time to integration for BTM was 37.37 days (p<0.001). The average infection rate for upper extremity wounds with BTM application was 8.5% (p<0.001). Satisfactory scarring and functional outcomes were reported in the majority of the studies. The authors conclude that BTM offers good wound healing outcomes for upper extremity reconstruction. The studies analysed indicate good graft take rates and a low infection incidence; however, further prospective randomised studies are required to support the efficacy of BTM compared to other dermal matrices.
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.