ArticleEuropean burn journal2025
Wound and Short-Term Scar Outcomes of Meek Micrografting Versus Mesh Grafting: An Intra-Patient Randomized Controlled Trial.
Article in European burn journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Early Outcomes and Complications of Skin Graft Reconstruction for Complex Wounds at a Tertiary Hospital: A Single-Centre Study in Oman.Diseases (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Article
- Correction: Rijpma et al. Wound and Short-Term Scar Outcomes of Meek Micrografting Versus Mesh Grafting: An Intra-Patient Randomized Controlled Trial.European burn journal · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Mesh grafting and Meek micrografting are split-thickness skin graft expansion techniques. This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of Meek and Mesh expansion ratios 1:2 and 1:3 in smaller wounds. An intra-patient randomized controlled trial was conducted at two burn centers (the Netherlands and Belgium). Wound outcomes, e.g., take rate, re-epithelialization rate, and donor site size, were measured. At 3 months post-surgery, patient preference and scar quality were evaluated with the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS), cutometer and dermaspectrometer. Seventy patients with a TBSA of 10 ± 10% (mean ± SD) were included. The take rate was 79 ± 25% vs. 87 ± 19% (
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.