ArticlePloS one2026
Low-fatigue, adjustable pressure garments at 10, 20 and 30 mm Hg reduce scar thickness and improve pliability.
Article in PloS one, 2026. 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Scarring remains problematic post-burn injury even with pressure garment therapy, the current standard of care for scar suppression. Unfortunately, there is no consensus regarding the minimum pressure magnitude required for efficacy. Thus, to fill this knowledge gap, the relationship between the magnitude of applied pressure and scar outcomes was assessed using a porcine burn-excise-autograft model. Scars were treated with adjustable, low-fatigue pressure garments fit to 10, 20, or 30 mmHg; control scars were untreated (n = 16/group). Scar contraction, thickness, histological appearance, and biomechanics were assessed, and garment fatigue was measured. At all magnitudes of applied pressure, use of garments significantly reduced scar contraction and thickness, and improved scar pliability and elasticity, versus controls. Utilizing adjustable, low-fatigue garments, pressures of 10, 20, and 30 mmHg were reliably maintained throughout the study, demonstrating the efficacy of pressure garment therapy at pressures as low as 10 mmHg. While 30 mmHg pressure garments significantly reduced contraction compared to 10 or 20 mmHg, these garments required greater adjustment of the garment to reach the target pressure, which in practice could necessitate more frequent garment replacement. The results showed that although greatest improvement was observed at 30 mmHg, pressure as low as 10 mm Hg is effective at reducing post-burn scarring if that pressure is maintained throughout the garment's use.
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.