Trial reportScientific reports2025
A randomized, controlled, double-blinded trial on the effects of acellular dermal matrices on the functional assessment and qualitative satisfaction of split-thickness skin grafts.
Trial report in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Acellular dermal matrix (ADM) has been widely used in skin grafting to provide a dermal layer for facilitating graft take and mature scarring. This randomized controlled, double-blinded superiority study aimed to quantitatively assess the effects of this technique on the resulting graft sites via functional measurements including elasticity, humidification, transepidermal water loss (TEWL), pigmentation, and erythema at 6 months after surgery. A survey was performed to evaluate the satisfaction levels of both patients and surgeons. We considered patients with full-thickness skin defects for whom split-thickness skin grafts (STSGs) were used. By random assignment, they were allocated to the ADM group or the STSG-only group. The ADM group received STSG with a ADM layer on the defect, whereas the STSG-only group was reconstructed with only STSG. At 6 months after surgery, patients were evaluated for elasticity, humidification, TEWL, erythema, and pigmentation. Defect areas before and 2 weeks after surgery were traced and measured. Patients and surgeons rated the graft sites as excellent, good, fair or poor at 6 months after the operation. Among the 89 patients who were screened, 54 patients were enrolled in this study. Compared with those in the STSG-only group, defects that were reconstructed with STSG and ADM resulted in significantly greater elasticity, lower TEWL, and less erythema. There were no significant differences in humidification or pigmentation. The ADM co-grafted with STSGs was associated with greater satisfaction among surgeons, whereas patient satisfaction was not significantly different between the two groups. Co-grafting ADM with STSG in full-thickness wounds can lead to favorable wound healing in terms of elasticity, TEWL, and erythema. This approach also has a higher satisfaction rate for surgeons.Registry: Clinical Research Information Service ( https://cris.nih.go.kr ), Registration number: KCT0007040, Registration date: 24/02/2022.
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.