ReviewCureus2025
Pediatric Facial Lacerations: Evidence-Based Over-the-Counter Wound Care and Scar Prevention for Clinicians and Caregivers.
Review in Cureus, 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.
- Effect of early application of a skin surface closure device combined with pulsed dye laser on the morphologic characteristics and clinical symptoms of tension scars on the backs of children.American journal of translational research · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Pediatric facial lacerations are common injuries that carry important cosmetic and psychosocial implications. Prompt, evidence-based management focusing on optimal wound closure, early wound care, and scar prevention is essential to achieving favorable long-term outcomes. This review summarizes findings from a comprehensive literature review conducted from 2010 to 2025, drawing from randomized controlled trials (RCTs), meta-analyses, systematic reviews, and clinical guidelines addressing pediatric facial laceration repair, wound care practices, scar prevention, and caregiver involvement. Practical interventions accessible over the counter (OTC) were emphasized. Evidence supports the use of topical anesthetics such as lidocaine-epinephrine-tetracaine (LET) gel to reduce procedural pain, copious irrigation with potable water, and wound closure methods tailored to the injury's characteristics, including tissue adhesives and absorbable sutures. Routine systemic antibiotics are not indicated for clean facial wounds. Early moist wound care with petrolatum promotes faster healing, while scar prevention measures such as silicone therapy, sun protection, scar massage, and tension offloading techniques significantly improve cosmetic outcomes. Over-the-counter products such as onion extract and vitamin E offer minimal benefit compared to silicone-based therapies. Parental education on wound care, emotional reassurance, and scar management plays a pivotal role in optimizing healing and minimizing the psychosocial impact of facial scars in children. Through collaboration between clinicians and caregivers, excellent functional and aesthetic outcomes can be achieved, helping children heal both physically and emotionally.
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.