Trial reportStem cell research & therapy2025
Efficacy and safety of epidermal cell regeneration for postoperative non-healing wounds: a randomized, partially blinded, parallel-controlled trial.
Trial report in Stem cell research & therapy, 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.
- Article
- Advanced biomaterial strategies for cancerous wound management from palliative to multifunctional platforms.iScience · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDelayed or nonhealing wounds following surgery present a significant clinical challenge. Autologous epidermal cell regeneration technology has shown promise in enhancing wound healing. This study aimed to evaluate its efficacy in treating postoperative nonhealing wounds.
methodsThis randomized, controlled trial involved 151 patients with nonhealing postoperative wounds, randomly assigned to two groups: the experimental group (n = 75) received standard treatments combined with autologous epidermal cell regeneration technology, and the control group (n = 76) received standard treatments alone. The primary endpoint was wound healing at 3 weeks. Key secondary endpoints included time to complete healing and recurrence rate. Statistical tests were performed to determine the significance of differences between groups. The study was registered with UMIN-CTR (UMIN000056733).
resultsIn the intention-to-treat population, significantly more patients in the experimental group achieved the primary endpoint at week 3 (66 of 75 [88.0%] vs. 51 of 76 [67.1%]; difference 20.9%, 97.5% CI: 0.0802, 0.3377; p = 0.004). Similar results were observed in the modified intention-to-treat population (62 of 71 [87.3%] vs. 47 of 73 [64.4.1%]; difference 22.9%, 97.5% CI: 0.0950, 0.3638; p = 0.003). These results were confirmed in the per-protocol population (61 of 68 [89.7%] vs. 47 of 69 [68.1%]; difference 21.6%, 97.5% CI: 0.0843, 0.3475, p = 0.004). In the safety analysis, 24.7% of the experimental group vs. 60.3% of the control group experienced treatment-emergent adverse events. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events were wound exudate and dehiscence, with no deaths or carcinogenicity reported.
conclusionAutologous epidermal cell regeneration technology is an effective and safe treatment for postoperative nonhealing wounds.
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.