A Systematic Review Comparing Animal and Human Scarring Models

Relatively higher-quality human studies compared with other topics in this database, e.g. multiple RCTs or systematic reviews. This does not mean it is standard or approved care.

• Level A · Stronger Clinical Evidence
• Level B · Emerging clinical evidence with positive signals
• Level C · Early human research exploring benefits
• Level D · Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studies
• Emerging · Emerging topic under active research

Abstract (original English)

Introduction A reproducible, standardised model for cutaneous scar tissue to assess therapeutics is crucial to the progress of the field. A systematic review was performed to critically evaluate scarring models in both animal and human research. Method All studies in which cutaneous scars are modelling in animals or humans were included. Models that were focused on the wound healing process or those in humans with scars from an existing injury were excluded. Ovid Medline ® was searched on 25 February 2019 to perform two near identical searches; one aimed at animals and the other aimed at humans. Two reviewers independently screened the titles and abstracts for study selection. Full texts of potentially suitable studies were then obtained for analysis. Results The animal kingdom search yielded 818 results, of which 71 were included in the review. Animals utilised included rabbits, mice, pigs, dogs and primates. Methods used for creating scar tissue included sharp excision, dermatome injury, thermal injury and injection of fibrotic substances. The search for scar assessment in humans yielded 287 results, of which 9 met the inclusion criteria. In all human studies, sharp incision was used to create scar tissue. Some studies focused on patients before or after elective surgery, including bilateral breast reduction, knee replacement or midline sternotomy. Discussion The rabbit ear s

Evidence level

Relatively higher-quality human studies compared with other topics in this database, e.g. multiple RCTs or systematic reviews. This does not mean it is standard or approved care.

Browse all related research

Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.