ArticleTurkish journal of surgery2025
Comparison of the effects of epidermal growth factor mesenchymal stem cell and silver sulfadiazine on burn stasis zone.
Article in Turkish journal of surgery, 2025. 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study investigates the effects of adipose tissue-derived mesenchymal stem cell (MSC), human recombinant epidermal growth factor (EGF) and silver sulfadiazine (SSD) on wound healing in the burn stasis zone by applying the comb burn model in rats. Material and Methods: A comb burn model was used for the burns and 32 Wistar albino female rats were randomly divided into four groups (control, SSD, SSD+MSC, SSD+EGF). On the 1 Results: Histopathological analysis demonstrated that epithelialization scores were highest in the MSC (3.88±0.35, p<0.001) and EGF (3.63±0.52) groups, while the control group had the lowest values (1.50±0.53). Inflammatory cell density was significantly lower in the MSC (1.50±0.53, p<0.001) and EGF (1.88±0.64) groups than in the control group (3.75±0.46). Similarly, fibroblast density was lowest in the MSC (1.38±0.52, p<0.001) and EGF (1.75±0.71) groups, while the control group had the highest values (3.63±0.52). Collagen fibril density was significantly increased in the MSC (3.88±0.35, p<0.001) and EGF (3.50±0.53) groups compared to the control (1.63±0.74). Angiogenesis was highest in the EGF group (3.75±0.46, p<0.001), followed by the MSC group (3.00±0.53), while the control group had the lowest values (1.25±0.46). These results suggest that MSC and EGF play a significant role in wound healing, with MSC demonstrating superior epithelialization and EGF exhibiting the greatest angiogenic effect. Photo-analytical measurements showed that on day 1, burn area sizes were similar among all groups (p>0.05). By day 21, the healing burn area was significantly smaller in the MSC (3.19±0.98 cm², p<0.001) and EGF (4.33±0.48 cm²) groups compared to the control (8.43±2.35 cm²). The non-healing area was smallest in the EGF group (0.67±0.49 cm²), followed by the MSC (1.06±0.49 cm², p<0.001) and SSD (1.91±0.75 cm²) groups, whereas the control group had the largest non-healing area (7.29±2.20 cm²). These findings suggest that MSC was the most effective treatment for promoting wound healing, followed by EGF and SSD. Conclusion: We determined that both histologically and photo analytically, MSC and EGF provided faster wound healing in the burn stasis zone EGF gave better results than all groups in preventing necrosis.
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.