ArticleJournal of tissue engineering
Safety and efficacy of bio-engineered, autologous dermo-epidermal skin grafts in reconstructive surgery: 1-year results of a prospective, randomized, intra-patient controlled, multicenter phase II clinical trial.
Article in Journal of tissue engineering. 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
23 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Extensive full-thickness defects remain challenging to reconstruct, as various techniques used, such as split-thickness skin grafts, often result in donor site morbidity and functional and cosmetic scar sequelae. This study evaluated the safety and efficacy of denovoSkin™-a bio-engineered autologous dermo-epidermal skin graft consisting of patient-derived epidermal and dermal cells cultured within an extracellular matrix-compared to autologous split thickness skin grafts (STSG). Twenty-three patients (mean age 37.4 years; 65% male; 70% post-burn scars), received both denovoSkin™ and STSG on comparable wound areas. At 3 months, scar quality was significantly better for denovoSkin™ than for STSG (POSAS observer total score 23.4 vs 27.9;
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.