Observational studyScientific reports2025
Natural history study of recessive dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa wounds and patient reported outcomes using mobile application home photography.
Observational study in Scientific reports, 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.
- Artificial Intelligence in Inherited Epidermolysis Bullosa: Current Evidence, Challenges, and Future Directions.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Recessive dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa (RDEB) is a rare, blistering genetic disease where wounding and wound pain are the most reported problems by patients. The natural history of RDEB wounds, specifically spontaneous wound closure between chronic open vs. recurrent wounds, has not been prospectively studied, thus limiting the design of clinical trial endpoints. We conducted a prospective observational study in which participants used a mobile application to upload weekly photographs of multiple target wounds for up to 6 months and reported associated wound pain and itch (Photo Cohort, N = 69 wounds). We also utilized a separate dataset of placebo-treated wounds from a previously completed trial (Validation Cohort, N = 57 wounds) to validate the 12-week definition of wounds and to determine their rate of spontaneous wound closure. We reveal that chronic open wounds were larger, more painful, and only 17% of were observed to have spontaneous wound closure during follow up. In contrast, 100% (P < 0.001) of recurrent wounds were observed to have spontaneous closure during the photo observation. These differences were confirmed in the Validation Cohort. The median time to wound closure for chronic open wounds was 14.6 vs. 8 weeks for recurrent wounds. Additionally, recurrent wounds had a 29-fold greater likelihood to close spontaneously. In conclusion, chronic open wounds have a lower rate of spontaneous wound closure and are associated with more pain and itch. Wound type is the most significant predictor of spontaneous wound closure and should be the key consideration in the selection of wounds in RDEB clinical trials.
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.