Trial reportPain research & management2026
A Comparison of Scar Infiltration, Scar Deactivation, and Standard of Care for Treatment of Chronic, Postsurgical Pain After Cesarean Section in the Primary Setting: A Comparative Effectiveness Trial.
Trial report in Pain research & management, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03936309 (A Comparison of Scar Infiltration, Scar Deactivation, and Standard of Care for the Treatment of Chronic, Post-Surgical Pain After Cesarean Section in the Primary Care Setting), which is not on this 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.
A Comparison of Scar Infiltration, Scar Deactivation, and Standard of Care for the Treatment of Chronic, Post-Surgical Pain After Cesarean Section in the Primary Care Setting: A Comparative Effectiveness Trial.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionChronic pain following Cesarean section significantly impacts quality of life. Postcesarean pain is often treated with pharmacologic therapies; however, there are no evidence-based guidelines available for refractory pain. The objective of this study is to determine if acupuncture and lidocaine scar infiltration improve pain.
methodsThis 20-week randomized control trial took place at two Air Force Base outpatient primary care clinics. Sixty postpartum Department of Defense beneficiaries aged 18 years or older with abdominal and/or back pain following a low transverse cesarean section, at least 3 months prior, were enrolled. Participants were randomized into one of 3 groups: (1) acupuncture scar deactivation, (2) scar infiltration with lidocaine, and (3) physical therapy (PT). The outcome measures were scar quality, as measured by the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS) and pain, as measured by the Defense and Veterans Pain Rating Scale (DVPRS) pre- and posttreatment, and were analyzed with random effects regression.
resultsAfter excluding individuals with missing data, 35 (58%) were analyzed for DVPRS and 51 (85%) were analyzed for POSAS measures. Participants had a mean age of 35 years, a BMI of 30 kg/m
conclusionThis study found an improvement in the DVPRS, patient-reported Patient and Observer Scar Assessment score, and observer-reported Patient and Observer Scar Assessment score across all treatment groups at 20 weeks compared to the initial baseline. Compared to PT, our results suggest that acupuncture was associated with a stronger improvement in the POSAS observer measure, but no other differences between treatment conditions were observed. PT is a well-established treatment modality but requires specialist training and frequent visits. Scar deactivation is an effective treatment but also requires specialist training. Scar infiltration with lidocaine is a procedure easily performed by most primary care physicians with limited cost. Patient-specific factors such as time availability and provider access may best guide treatment decisions for these patients.
trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03936309.
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.