↓ Skip to main content

A comprehensive evidence-based review on the role of topicals and dressings in the management of skin scarring

Overview of attention for article published in Archives of Dermatological Research, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#31 of 1,446)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
twitter
2 X users
patent
3 patents
wikipedia
8 Wikipedia pages
video
1 YouTube creator

Citations

dimensions_citation
98 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
241 Mendeley
Title
A comprehensive evidence-based review on the role of topicals and dressings in the management of skin scarring
Published in
Archives of Dermatological Research, June 2015
DOI 10.1007/s00403-015-1572-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

G. P. Sidgwick, D. McGeorge, A. Bayat

Abstract

Wound healing after dermal injury is an imperfect process, inevitably leading to scar formation as the skin re-establishes its integrity. The resulting scars have different characteristics to normal skin, ranging from fine-line asymptomatic scars to problematic scarring including hypertrophic and keloid scars. Scars appear as a different colour to the surrounding skin and can be flat, stretched, depressed or raised, manifesting a range of symptoms including inflammation, erythema, dryness and pruritus, which can result in significant psychosocial impact on patients and their quality of life. In this paper, a comprehensive literature review coupled with an analysis of levels of evidence (LOE) for each published treatment type was conducted. Topical treatments identified include imiquimod, mitomycin C and plant extracts such as onion extract, green tea, Aloe vera, vitamin E and D, applied to healing wounds, mature scar tissue or fibrotic scars following revision surgery, or in combination with other more established treatments such as steroid injections and silicone. In total, 39 articles were included, involving 1703 patients. There was limited clinical evidence to support their efficacy; the majority of articles (n = 23) were ranked as category 4 LOE, being of limited quality with individual flaws, including low patient numbers, poor randomisation, blinding, and short follow-up periods. As trials were performed in different settings, they were difficult to compare. In conclusion, there is an unmet clinical need for effective solutions to skin scarring, more robust long-term randomised trials and a consensus on a standardised treatment regime to address all aspects of scarring.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 241 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 241 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 41 17%
Student > Bachelor 33 14%
Other 20 8%
Student > Master 19 8%
Student > Postgraduate 16 7%
Other 44 18%
Unknown 68 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 75 31%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 19 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 12 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 12 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 4%
Other 28 12%
Unknown 86 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 27. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 06 February 2024.
All research outputs
#1,432,722
of 25,436,226 outputs
Outputs from Archives of Dermatological Research
#31
of 1,446 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#17,652
of 280,932 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Archives of Dermatological Research
#2
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,436,226 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,446 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 280,932 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.