ArticleJPRAS open2025
Comparative study of chitosan-based liquid dressing and recombinant human epidermal growth factor on acute limb skin wound healing: A randomized controlled trial.
Article in JPRAS open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Polysaccharides from the Peel ofPolymers · 2026Article
- Berberine-based strategies: novel delivery systems bring out new potential for wound healing.Chinese medicine · 2025Review
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
Background: Several traditional dressings may have limitation in treating wounds. A novel chitosan-based dressing designed for improved hemostasis, moisture, and sealing shows promise in wound healing. However, its efficacy and safety are yet to be sufficiently verified in patients. Methods: This randomized controlled trial enrolled 40 patients suffering from acute skin wounds in the limbs from 12/2022 to 12/2023. They were randomly divided into two groups (20 vs. 20) and received regular treatments in the Shenzhen Second People's Hospital. The experimental group was treated with chitosan-based liquid dressing, whereas the control group was treated with traditional dressing with recombinant human epidermal growth factor (rhEGF). The therapeutic effects (scar area and pigment deposition), adverse events, visual analogue scale (VAS), healing time, cost, and the patient and observer scar assessment scale (POSAS) were evaluated on days 0, 7, 14, and 28. Results: No adverse events were observed throughout the trial. On day 28, effective rate between groups were not statistically significant between the groups (70% vs. 85%, Conclusion: Compared to rhEGF, the CS-based liquid dressing showed reliable safety and equivalent performance in treating acute limb skin wounds, as revealed by improvements in healing time and rate, pain relief, and costs. Moreover, liquid dressing significantly reduced scar formation, indicating its potential in wound therapy.
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.