ArticleInternational wound journal2026
Early Prediction of Scar Outcomes: A Prospective Study on the Predictive Value of 3-Month Scar Assessments for 12-Month Results.
Article in International wound journal, 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Scar outcomes are traditionally evaluated at 12 months post-surgery, yet early prediction of long-term scar characteristics may facilitate timely interventions, enhance treatment strategies, shorten clinical trial durations, and improve patient outcomes. This study evaluates whether 3-month scar assessments reliably predict 12-month outcomes using validated scar assessment scales and interrater reliability measures. Two surgeons evaluated a prospective cohort of 40 surgical patients using standardised scar assessment tools. Logistic regression assessed the predictive value of 3-month classifications for 12-month binary outcomes ('good' vs. 'poor' scar quality), while linear regression evaluated continuous scar scores. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves and area under the curve (AUC) values quantified predictive accuracy. Scars classified as 'good' at 3 months were significantly more likely to remain 'good' at 12 months (p < 0.001), with strong predictive performance (AUC = 0.763). Linear regression demonstrated significant predictive accuracy for width, height, and overall opinion. However, vascularity predictions were weak, and depth was not significantly associated with long-term outcomes. Interrater reliability was moderate to good across measures, with intraclass correlation coefficients values ranging from 0.215 (depth) to 0.714 (width), and Cohen's Kappa for binary scar classifications of 0.505 (p < 0.001). Early 3-month scar assessments reliably predict 12-month outcomes for width, height, and overall opinion, while vascularity and depth remain less predictable. Scars rated as 'good' at 3 months are unlikely to worsen, while 'poor' scars rarely improve without intervention. These findings highlight the utility of early scar evaluations in guiding postoperative management and patient counselling.
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.