Trial reportScientific reports2026
The effect of amniotic membrane application on post-cesarean wound healing and cosmetic outcomes.
Trial report in Scientific reports, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Post-cesarean wound complications-such as surgical site infection (SSI), dehiscence, and hypertrophic scarring-remain a challenge in obstetric surgery. We evaluated whether intraoperative autologous amniotic membrane application improves postoperative outcomes. In a single-blind, randomized controlled trial, 372 women undergoing elective cesarean section were allocated to an amniotic membrane group (n = 174) or control group (n = 198). SSI incidence was lower with amniotic membrane (4.3% vs. 10.8%; p < 0.05), and wound dehiscence was reduced (2.1% vs. 6.4%; p < 0.05). Postoperative pain scores (Visual Analog Scale) were significantly lower in the amniotic membrane group on postoperative day 1 (3.38 ± 1.36 vs. 4.05 ± 1.53; p = 0.01) and day 2 (1.25 ± 0.71 vs. 2.01 ± 0.98; p = 0.001). Clinician-rated cosmetic appearance (Modified Hollander Wound Evaluation Scale) did not differ between groups (p = 0.863), whereas patient-reported satisfaction was higher with amniotic membrane (p = 0.001). No predefined adverse events were observed. These findings suggest that amniotic membrane application may reduce wound-related complications and postoperative pain and improve patient satisfaction after cesarean delivery; confirmatory studies in broader populations are warranted.
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.