ArticleEmergency medicine international2026
Usability Testing of a Hair Apposition Device for Scalp Laceration: A Manikin Simulation Study.
Article in Emergency medicine international, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Usability Testing of a Hair Apposition Device for Scalp Laceration: A Manikin Simulation Study.Emergency medicine international · 2026Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: The hair apposition technique (HAT) is a method for closing scalp lacerations by twisting adjacent hair strands, which may require more than one operator. The hair apposition device (HADev), a prototype, was developed to enable single-operator use by integrating a comb, hair clips, and an anchoring system. Accordingly, the objective of this study was to evaluate the usability of HADev. Methods: Study participants were medical professionals with prior experience in HAT. Following a 30-min lecture and practice session, participants performed HAT using HADev on manikins with short (8 cm) and long (20 cm) hair. Each participant completed two procedures for each hair type. Participants were randomized according to the sequence of hair length. The success rate and procedure time were recorded. Questionnaires were administered to assess the perceived difficulty and satisfaction. Results: Twenty participants (13 physicians and 7 residents) completed 40 procedures using HADev, with 20 performed on short-haired manikins and 20 on long-haired manikins. For short hair, physicians and residents achieved success rates of 100% and 85.7%, with median procedure times of 55.1 and 52.8 s, respectively. For long hair, physicians and residents achieved success rates of 92.3% and 100%, with median times of 63.0 and 62.1 s, respectively. The median perceived difficulty scores (1 = very easy, 5 = very difficult) were 2 for HAT and 1 for HADev. The median satisfaction scores (1 = excellent, 5 = very poor) were 2 for physicians and 3 for residents with HAT and 1 for both groups with HADev. Conclusion: HADev demonstrated feasibility for single-operator use in a simulated environment, with a 95% success rate and procedure time of approximately 1 min for both hair conditions. However, further studies are needed to improve its usability and assess its clinical applicability.
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.