ArticlePloS one2025
Non-surgical treatments for post-burn scars: A network meta-analysis.
Article in PloS one, 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.
- ML281 Does Not Function as an STK33 Inhibitor but Modulates Proliferation and Differentiation of Keratinocytes Derived from Hypertrophic Scars.International journal of molecular sciences · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimPost-burn scarring is a prevalent condition, and the existing non-surgical treatments exhibit varying degrees of efficacy. There is limited evidence available to determine the effective non-surgical treatment for post-burn scars. This study employs a multi-index network meta-analysis to conduct a comprehensive evaluation and comparative ranking of non-surgical treatments for post-burn scars. The aim is to identify the most effective treatment methods, thereby providing a robust, evidence-based foundation to guide clinical decision-making.
methodsPubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, PEDro, and Embase were systematically searched for eligible randomized controlled trial studies, and the network meta-analysis was performed via a frequentist approach. The primary outcomes assessed were Vancouver Scar Scale score, scar thickness and Visual Analogue Scale score.
resultsA total of 17 studies and 1,013 participants were included in this analysis. The treatment ranking revealed that massage therapy demonstrated the most significant efficacy in reducing Vancouver Scar Scale score (surface under the cumulative ranking curve [SUCRA] = 89.0%), CO2 laser therapy exhibited the highest efficacy in decreasing scar thickness (SUCRA = 96.8%), and extracorporeal shock wave therapy + routine treatment showed the most significant efficacy in reducing Visual Analogue Scale score (SUCRA = 58.6%).
conclusionThis network meta-analysis illustrates that massage therapy, CO2 laser therapy and extracorporeal shock wave therapy + routine treatment are the most effective non-surgical treatments for reducing Vancouver Scar Scale score, scar thickness and Visual Analogue Scale score for post-burn scars, respectively. However, the findings reflect outcomes at a specific stage of scar maturation. And our conclusions must be interpreted with caution due to the limited number of studies included. In the future, well-designed randomized controlled trials with a large sample size are needed to validate these findings.
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.