Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42564714›Full record

ArticleJPRAS open2026

Defining dermal matrices: Results of a global Delphi panel in surgical reconstruction.

Cristina Magnoni, Joon Pio Hong, Eric Dantzer, Annebeth de Vries, Brett C Hartman, Anne Le Touze, Luiz Philipe Molina Vana, Enrique Monclús, Markus Öhlbauer, Britta Wallner and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JPRAS open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Cristina MagnoniDermatology Unit, Department of Surgical, Medical, Dental & Morphological Sciences With Interest Transplant, Oncological & Regenerative Medicine, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Modena, Italy.
Joon Pio HongDepartment of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Eric DantzerBurn Center, Hôpital d'Instruction des Armées Sainte-Anne, Toulon, France.
Annebeth de VriesAlliance of Dutch Burn Care (ADBC), Burn Centre, Red Cross Hospital, Beverwijk, The Netherlands.
Brett C HartmanRichard M. Fairbanks Burn Center, Eskenazi Health, Indianapolis, IN, USA.
Anne Le TouzeUnit of Pediatric Dermatology, Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Center (CHRU) of Tours, Tours, France.
Luiz Philipe Molina VanaHospital das Clínicas, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, SP, Brazil.
Enrique MonclúsHospital Viamed Montecanal, Zaragoza, Spain.
Markus ÖhlbauerDepartment for Plastic, Aesthetic and Reconstructive Microsurgery/Burn Center, BG Trauma Center Murnau, Murnau, Germany.
Britta WallnerDepartment of Plastic, Aesthetic and Reconstructive Microsurgery, Centre for Severe Burns, BG Murnau Hospital, 82418, Murnau am Staffelsee, Germany.
Esther MiddelkoopAlliance of Dutch Burn Care (ADBC), Burn Centre, Red Cross Hospital, Beverwijk, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Dermal matrices are increasingly used in reconstructive surgery to manage complex soft-tissue defects, yet inconsistent terminology and variable product characteristics hinder their clinical and regulatory standardization. Objective: To establish international expert consensus on the definition, essential features, and clinical role of dermal matrices in surgical reconstruction using a structured Delphi methodology. Methods: A two-round Delphi process was conducted. A Steering Committee of 11 specialists developed and refined 41 statements based on a literature review and clinical experience. These were rated by a global panel of experts using a 5-point Likert scale. Consensus was defined as ≥75% agreement (scores of 4 or 5). Statements not reaching consensus were revised or removed and presented in a second round. Results: Of 70 experts invited, 43 participated in round one and 36 in round two. Consensus was achieved on 34 statements, addressing definitions, biomaterial safety, biological functions (e.g., cell adhesion, vascularization), and clinical outcomes (e.g., reduced scarring, neodermis formation). Key areas lacking consensus included the role of synthetic components, inclusion of specific extracellular matrix constituents, optimal degradation time, pore size thresholds, and barrier function. These gaps reflect variability in product performance and a lack of comparative data. Conclusion: This Delphi panel established a foundational framework for defining and evaluating dermal matrices in reconstructive surgery. While consensus was achieved on many core principles, areas of uncertainty highlight the need for further comparative studies to guide evidence-based practice and product innovation.

Indexed as

Delphi consensusDermal matricesReconstructive surgerySurgical reconstructionWound healing

Identifiers

PMID42564714
PMCPMC13445469

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.