Trial reportAesthetic plastic surgery2025
The Effectiveness of PELNAC
Trial report in Aesthetic plastic 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to report the clinical effectiveness advantages of absorbable dressing (PELNAC
methodsThirty-two patients comprising 20 in the experimental and 12 in the control group, respectively, were randomly selected. They had undergone excision or extended excision of facial bumps with wounds that could not be directly sutured. In the experimental group, after mass excision, the wounds were covered with PELNAC
resultsThe wound infection rate in the experimental group was significantly lower than in the control group (P<0.05); the surgery time for the experimental group was shortened by 1.5 h compared to the control group (P<0.05). Four weeks after surgery, all wounds in the experimental group had healed, with a significantly higher healing rate than in the control group (P<0.05). During follow-up, the scar scores in the experimental group were significantly lower than those in the control group (P<0.05).
conclusionThe combination of PELNAC LEVEL OF EVIDENCE I: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .
Indexed as
Identifiers
40307600What 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.