The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Rapid Healing of Venous Ulcers and Lack of Clinical Rejection With an Allogeneic Cultured Human Skin Equivalent
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To test the safety, efficacy, and immunological impact of a cultured allogeneic human skin equivalent (HSE) in the treatment of venous ulcers. DESIGN: Prospective, randomized study. SETTING: Multicenter study in the outpatient setting. INTERVENTION: Each patient with a venous ulcer received either compression therapy alone or compression therapy and treatment with HSE. The patients were evaluated for HSE safety, complete (100%) ulcer healing, time to wound closure, wound recurrence, and immune response to the HSE. OUTCOME: The study was completed as planned in 293 randomized patients. RESULTS: Treatment with HSE was more effective than compression therapy in the percentage of patients healed by 6 months (63% vs 49%; P=.02, Fisher exact test, 2-tailed) and the median time to complete wound closure (61 days vs 181 days; P=.003, log-rank test). Treatment with HSE was superior to compression therapy in healing larger (> 1000 mm2; P=.02) and deeper ulcers (P=.003) and ulcers of more than 6 months' duration (P=.001). Occurrence of adverse events was similar in both groups. No symptoms or signs of rejection occurred in response to treatment with HSE, and no HSE-specific immune responses were detected in vitro to bovine collagen or to alloantigens expressed on keratinocytes or fibroblasts. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with HSE healed venous ulcers more rapidly and in more patients than compression therapy alone. There was no clinical or laboratory evidence of rejection or sensitization in response to HSE application. These data suggest that HSE represents a significant advance in the treatment of venous ulcers, particularly those that are difficult to heal.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
THE CAUSE OF VENOUS ULCERATION
Browse, N. L., & Burnand, K. G. (1982) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(82)90325-7 · Cited by 572
The “trap” hypothesis of venous ulceration
Falanga, V., & Eaglstein, W. (1993) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/0140-6736(93)91085-z · Cited by 330
Self-citation
Cited by
Singer, A. J., & Clark, R. A. F. (1999) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm199909023411006 · Cited by 6,106
Falanga, V., Isseroff, R. R., Soulika, A. M., Romanelli, M., Margolis, D., Kapp, S., Granick, M., & Harding, K. (2022) · Nature Reviews Disease Primers · doi:10.1038/s41572-022-00377-3 · Cited by 1,020
Self-citationBroughton, G., Janis, J. E., & Attinger, C. E. (2006) · Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery · doi:10.1097/01.prs.0000222562.60260.f9 · Cited by 917
Tissue Engineering for Cutaneous Wounds
Clark, R. A. F., Ghosh, K., & Tonnesen, M. G. (2007) · Journal of Investigative Dermatology · doi:10.1038/sj.jid.5700715 · Cited by 538
Wound healing: Biologic features and approaches to maximize healing trajectories
Robson, M. C., Steed, D. L., & Franz, M. G. (2001) · Current Problems in Surgery · doi:10.1067/msg.2001.111167 · Cited by 503
Metadata
- Authors
- Falanga, V.
- Venue
- Archives of Dermatology
- Publisher
- American Medical Association (AMA)
- Published
- 1998-03-01
- Volume
- 134
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 293
- ISSN
- 0003-987X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2134150152
- Cited by
- 660
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 44.76
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Rapid Healing of Venous Ulcers and Lack of Clinical Rejection With an Allogeneic Cultured Human Skin Equivalent. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/archderm.134.3.293
- The paper
- Falanga, V. (1998). Rapid Healing of Venous Ulcers and Lack of Clinical Rejection With an Allogeneic Cultured Human Skin Equivalent. Archives of Dermatology. https://doi.org/10.1001/archderm.134.3.293
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.