Cargando…

Evaluating evidence for atrophic scarring treatment modalities

INTRODUCTION: Atrophic scars cause significant patient morbidity. Whilst there is evidence to guide treatment, there does not appear to be a systematic review to analyse the efficacy of treatment options. OBJECTIVES: To retrieve all evidence relating to atrophic scar treatment and evaluate using the...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Patel, Lopa, McGrouther, Duncan, Chakrabarty, Kaushik
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: SAGE Publications 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4207294/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25352991
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2054270414540139
_version_ 1782340946784944128
author Patel, Lopa
McGrouther, Duncan
Chakrabarty, Kaushik
author_facet Patel, Lopa
McGrouther, Duncan
Chakrabarty, Kaushik
author_sort Patel, Lopa
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: Atrophic scars cause significant patient morbidity. Whilst there is evidence to guide treatment, there does not appear to be a systematic review to analyse the efficacy of treatment options. OBJECTIVES: To retrieve all evidence relating to atrophic scar treatment and evaluate using the Clinical Evidence GRADE score in order to allow clinicians to make evidence-based treatment choices. METHOD: Searches were performed in Medline, EMBASE, CINHL and Cochrane to identify all English studies published evaluating treatment of atrophic scars on adults excluding journal letters. Each study was allocated a GRADE score based on type of study, quality, dose response, consistency of results and significance of results. The end score allowed categorisation of evidence into high, moderate, low or very low quality. RESULTS: A total of 41 studies were retrieved from searches including randomised controlled trials, observational studies, retrospective analyses and case reports of which 7% were allocated a high-quality score, 10% a moderate score, 7% a low score and 75% a very low score. Treatment modalities included ablative laser therapy, non-ablative laser therapy, autologous fat transfer, dermabrasion, chemical peels, injectables, subcision, tretinoin iontophoresis and combination therapy. CONCLUSION: There is a paucity of good-quality clinical evidence evaluating treatment modalities for atrophic scarring. Evidence supports efficacy of laser, surgery and peel therapy. Further biomolecular research is required to identify targeted treatment options and more randomised controlled trials would make the evidence base for atrophic scar treatment more robust.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4207294
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher SAGE Publications
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-42072942014-10-28 Evaluating evidence for atrophic scarring treatment modalities Patel, Lopa McGrouther, Duncan Chakrabarty, Kaushik JRSM Open Clinical Review INTRODUCTION: Atrophic scars cause significant patient morbidity. Whilst there is evidence to guide treatment, there does not appear to be a systematic review to analyse the efficacy of treatment options. OBJECTIVES: To retrieve all evidence relating to atrophic scar treatment and evaluate using the Clinical Evidence GRADE score in order to allow clinicians to make evidence-based treatment choices. METHOD: Searches were performed in Medline, EMBASE, CINHL and Cochrane to identify all English studies published evaluating treatment of atrophic scars on adults excluding journal letters. Each study was allocated a GRADE score based on type of study, quality, dose response, consistency of results and significance of results. The end score allowed categorisation of evidence into high, moderate, low or very low quality. RESULTS: A total of 41 studies were retrieved from searches including randomised controlled trials, observational studies, retrospective analyses and case reports of which 7% were allocated a high-quality score, 10% a moderate score, 7% a low score and 75% a very low score. Treatment modalities included ablative laser therapy, non-ablative laser therapy, autologous fat transfer, dermabrasion, chemical peels, injectables, subcision, tretinoin iontophoresis and combination therapy. CONCLUSION: There is a paucity of good-quality clinical evidence evaluating treatment modalities for atrophic scarring. Evidence supports efficacy of laser, surgery and peel therapy. Further biomolecular research is required to identify targeted treatment options and more randomised controlled trials would make the evidence base for atrophic scar treatment more robust. SAGE Publications 2014-08-11 /pmc/articles/PMC4207294/ /pubmed/25352991 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2054270414540139 Text en © The Author(s) 2014 Reprints and permissions: sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 License (http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access page(http://www.uk.sagepub.com/aboutus/openaccess.htm).
spellingShingle Clinical Review
Patel, Lopa
McGrouther, Duncan
Chakrabarty, Kaushik
Evaluating evidence for atrophic scarring treatment modalities
title Evaluating evidence for atrophic scarring treatment modalities
title_full Evaluating evidence for atrophic scarring treatment modalities
title_fullStr Evaluating evidence for atrophic scarring treatment modalities
title_full_unstemmed Evaluating evidence for atrophic scarring treatment modalities
title_short Evaluating evidence for atrophic scarring treatment modalities
title_sort evaluating evidence for atrophic scarring treatment modalities
topic Clinical Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4207294/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25352991
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2054270414540139
work_keys_str_mv AT patellopa evaluatingevidenceforatrophicscarringtreatmentmodalities
AT mcgroutherduncan evaluatingevidenceforatrophicscarringtreatmentmodalities
AT chakrabartykaushik evaluatingevidenceforatrophicscarringtreatmentmodalities