Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 271

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 15 of the 15 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Histologic characterization of vaginal vs. abdominal surgical wound healing in a rabbit model

Abramov, Yoram, Golden, Barbara, Sullivan, Megan, Botros, Sylvia M., Miller, Jay‐James R., Alshahrour, Adeeb, Goldberg, Roger P., Sand, Peter K.·2007·Wound Repair and Regeneration

Abstract

We aimed to compare the histologic characteristics of vaginal vs. abdominal surgical wound healing in the rabbit. Bilateral 6 mm full‐thickness circular segments were excised from the vagina and abdominal skin in 34 New Zealand white female rabbits. Animals were euthanized on the day of and 4, 7, 10, 14, 21, 28, and 35 days after wounding, and their wounds were evaluated using a modified scoring system. The inter‐ and intraobserver agreements of the scoring system were good (weighted κ 0.63 and 0.71, respectively). A transient fibrinous crust was evident in 75% of the abdominal and in none of the vaginal wound specimens on days 4–7 after wounding (p=0.01). Acute inflammation peaked at day 4 in both the vaginal and abdominal wounds, while chronic inflammation peaked at days 4–7 and 14–21 in the abdomen and vagina, respectively. Both neovascularization and the amount of granulation tissue peaked at days 4 and 7 in the vagina and abdomen, respectively. Maturation of granulation tissue and collagen deposition increased persistently in both tissues until postwounding day 35. Reepithelialization increased after wounding, and was completed by day 14 in both tissues. The surgical wound‐healing process in both the vagina and abdomen includes transient acute and chronic inflammation, fibroblast proliferation, and neovascularization, as well as progressive maturation of granulation tissue, reepithelialization, and collagen deposition. A transient fibrinous crust forms in the abdomen but not in the vagina 4–7 days after wounding. The modified histologic scoring system described here was found to be reliable and reproducible.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1524-475x.2006.00188.x

Cites

15 of 15 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 15 references

Cited by

See all 271

Metadata

Authors
Abramov, Y., Golden, B., Sullivan, M., Botros, S. M., Miller, J. R., Alshahrour, A., Goldberg, R. P., & Sand, P. K.
Venue
Wound Repair and Regeneration
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2007-01
Volume
15
Issue
1
Pages
80-86
ISSN
  • 1067-1927 (ISSN-L)
  • 1524-475X
OpenAlex
W2040612059
Cited by
271
References
15
FWCI
2.47
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: Histologic characterization of vaginal vs. abdominal surgical wound healing in a rabbit model. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1524-475x.2006.00188.x
The paper
Abramov, Y., Golden, B., Sullivan, M., Botros, S. M., Miller, J. R., Alshahrour, A., Goldberg, R. P., & Sand, P. K. (2007). Histologic characterization of vaginal vs. abdominal surgical wound healing in a rabbit model. Wound Repair and Regeneration. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-475x.2006.00188.x

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.