Currently, there are various therapeutic approaches to reduce hypertrophic scarring; however, there is no standard evidence-based treatment protocol. Hence, a systematic review was performed to obtain a summary of the latest clinical trials to evaluate evidence for the treatment of hypertrophic scars. The review protocol was registered and approved by PROSPERO (CRD42015027040). PubMed and Web of Science were searched using predefined MeSH-Terms to identify studies published within the last 10 years regarding treatment for hypertrophic scars. Exclusion criteria included a level of evidence (LoE) lower than I, nonhuman in vivo studies, in vitro studies, studies on keloids, literature reviews, and non-English articles. The literature search identified 1,029 unique articles, whereas 6 articles were prospective, randomized, blinded, controlled clinical trials with a LoE I, and were thus included in the systematic analysis. Three clinical trials evaluated silicone products and pressure garments, and the other three studies investigated the efficacy of intralesional injections of triamcinolone (TAC), 5-Fluorouracil (5-FU) combined with TAC as well as the additional irradiation with a 585 nm pulsed-dye laser (PDL). Intralesional injections revealed significant improvements of the scar quality in terms of height, thickness, erythema, and pigmentation. Pressure garments showed favorable results but there was no evidence that silicone products were able to improve the scar quality. The systematic review demonstrated that there are just a few clinical trials with a LoE of I. Consequently, evidence is still lacking especially for noninvasive treatment regimens for hypertrophic scars. Intralesional injections of 5-FU mixed with a low dose of TAC can be seen as most appropriate treatment modality. Prospective clinical trials to determine the efficiency of silicone products are warranted.
BackgroundThe objective of the current study was to compare the diagnostic accuracy of 2 new real‐time polymerase chain reaction–based urinary markers with each other and with urinary cytology, cystoscopy, and/or histology in patients being followed for non–muscle‐invasive bladder cancer.MethodsA total of 487 patients were enrolled in the study. Patients were evaluated using voided urine cytology, the Xpert Bladder Cancer Monitor, the Bladder EpiCheck test, and white light cystoscopy.ResultsThe overall sensitivity was 27.17% for cytology, 64.13% for the Bladder EpiCheck test, and 66.3% for the Xpert Bladder Cancer Monitor. The overall specificity was 98.82% for cytology, 82.06% for the Bladder EpiCheck test, and 76.47% for the Xpert Bladder Cancer Monitor. The negative predictive value was very similar for the 3 tests at 83.56% for cytology, 89.42% for the Bladder EpiCheck test, and 89.35% for the Xpert Bladder Cancer Monitor. When combined, the Bladder EpiCheck test and Xpert Bladder Cancer Monitor detected overall 79.35% of the tumors: 70.37% in low‐grade and 92.11% in high‐grade tumors.ConclusionsThe Xpert Bladder Cancer Monitor and Bladder EpiCheck test were found to perform very well in terms of sensitivity. Together, the 2 tests detected approximately 92.11% of high‐grade tumors. Their specificity was high but could not reach the excellent value of cytology. The negative predictive value was the same for both tests and was higher than that for cytology, especially when the tests were used together (92.24%). These 2 new tests hold promise as urinary biomarkers. They may be used in combination to maximize sensitivity in a less invasive way, thereby reducing invasiveness in the follow‐up of patients with non–muscle‐invasive bladder cancer and decreasing discomfort for the patients as well as complications and costs.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.