ArticleEuropean burn journal2025
Fractional CO
Article in European burn journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Comment from the Enhancing Burn Rehabilitation Special Edition Editors on "Fractional COEuropean burn journal · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAssessing hypertrophic scar (HTS) interventions is challenging because scars continue to undergo dynamic changes. A split-scar design can distinguish treatment effects from natural HTS evolution. Despite promising reports of ablative fractional CO
objectiveTo explore the feasibility of a split-scar design in assessing AFCO
methodsInitially designed as a prospective single-center split-scar randomized controlled trial, our study transitioned to a feasibility trial due to recruitment challenges. Pediatric patients aged 1-17 years with HTS suitable for split-scar evaluation received three AFCO
resultsRecruitment was limited by COVID-19 restrictions, concerns about general anesthesia for split-scar treatment, and low interest in divided-scar interventions, resulting in only 6 participants with 9 scars enrolled, far below the target sample size of 44. This small heterogeneous sample precluded meaningful clinical outcome analysis.
conclusionsOur feasibility trial highlights challenges in conducting rigorous pediatric HTS studies and the need for careful interpretation of evidence due to potential publication bias. Future trials should focus on tailored recruitment and comprehensive reporting to improve feasibility and reliability.
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.