Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41326030›Full record

ReviewZhonghua shao shang yu chuang mian xiu fu za zhi2025

[Multidisciplinary integration in the diagnosis and treatment in burns and wound repair surgery: current status, challenges, and future].

H Guan, D L Zhang

Abstract readReviewEnglish Abstract
In one paragraph

Review in Zhonghua shao shang yu chuang mian xiu fu za zhi, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

H GuanDepartment of Burns and Cutaneous Surgery, Burn Center of PLA, the First Affiliated Hospital of Air Force Medical University, Xi'an 710032, China.
D L ZhangDepartment of Burns and Cutaneous Surgery, Burn Center of PLA, the First Affiliated Hospital of Air Force Medical University, Xi'an 710032, China.

Funding

General Program of National Natural Science Foundation of China 82272268Key Research and Development Program of Shaanxi Province of China 2024SF-ZDCYL-04-10
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Burn medicine, as the only clinical discipline named based on etiology, is an interdisciplinary subject that integrates burn trauma emergency, wound repair, functional reconstruction, and comprehensive rehabilitation. The history of burn medicine development is an evolutionary history of the continuous integration and permeation of multi-disciplinary technologies and the continuous improvement of theoretical systems. In recent years, with the improvement of public protection awareness and changes in the disease spectrum, the burn discipline is undergoing a profound transformation from single-specialty treatment to the multidisciplinary team (MDT) collaborative diagnosis and treatment model. Its scope has gradually expanded to a more integrated burns and wound repair surgery. This article starts from the changes in the disease spectrum of the discipline, systematically analyzes the necessity, current status, and main practice models of multidisciplinary integration in the diagnosis and treatment of burns and wound repair surgery. It explores the opportunities and challenges that cutting-edge technologies such as artificial intelligence and regenerative medicine pose to the innovative development of the discipline in promoting the MDT collaboration, and puts forward the future direction for the development of MDT collaborative diagnosis and treatment in burns and wound repair surgery, hoping to provide a reference for the discipline construction.

Indexed as

BurnsPatient Care TeamHumansPlastic Surgery ProceduresWound Healing

Identifiers

PMID41326030
PMCPMC12672141

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.