Cited by 56Wound Healing and TreatmentsDermatologic Treatments and ResearchPeriodontal Regeneration and Treatments

Clinical Evaluation of the Trophic Effect of Polydeoxyribonucleotide (PDRN) in Patients Undergoing Skin Explants. A Pilot Study

Rubegni, P., De Aloe, G., Mazzatenta, C., Cattarini, L., Fimiani, M.·2001·Current Medical Research and Opinion

Abstract

Objective The purpose of this double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled study was to assess the effects of intramuscular and subcutaneous PDRN in favouring the wound-healing process in donor sites of grafts. Methods 26 adult patients of both sexes (15 males and 11 females; mean age: 68.2 +/- 16.1 years) subjected to skin explants due to plastic surgery were eligible to participate in this double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Patients were randomly allocated into the PDRN group (14 subjects) or the placebo group (12 subjects). PDRN (5625 mg/vial) or placebo were administered by the intramuscular route once daily, associated with a subcutaneous administration of the same dosage form (2 vials every 3 days) for 10 consecutive days. The primary end point for efficacy was the evolution of wound healing in donor sites, which was evaluated measuring wound surface area and then calculating percentage re-epithelialisation. Secondary end points were local subjective symptoms, such as pain and itching, and objective signs such as perilesional erythema and blisters. Signs and symptoms were quantified through an analogue scale. Results At day 7 of the treatment period, the difference in percentage of re-epithelialisation was statistically significant (p Conclusions The findings of our study demonstrated that PDRN is able to modify positively the repair processes in donor sites of autologous skin grafts. This could improve the clinical outcome and decrease the need for additional ther…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1185/0300799039117047

Cites

10 of 10 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 11 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Rubegni, P., De Aloe, G., Mazzatenta, C., Cattarini, L., & Fimiani, M.
Affiliations
  • University of Siena (IT)
  • Mastelli (Italy) (IT)
Venue
Current Medical Research and Opinion
Published
2001-01
Volume
17
Issue
2
Pages
128-131
ISSN
  • 0300-7995 (ISSN-L)
  • 1473-4877
OpenAlex
W2155587700
Cited by
56
References
11
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 1
FWCI
0.80
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Current Medical Research and Opinion (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Use Siena air (University of Siena) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Rehabilitation › Wound Healing and Treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Dermatology › Dermatologic Treatments and Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Urology › Periodontal Regeneration and Treatments
Keywords
polydeoxyribonucleotide, wound healing, donor site, skin grafts, re-epithelialization, trophic effects, intramuscular administration, subcutaneous administration, autologous skin grafting, plastic surgery
MeSH terms
Aged, Double-Blind Method, Evaluation Studies as Topic, Female, Humans, Length of Stay, Male, Middle Aged, Pilot Projects, Polydeoxyribonucleotides, Wound Healing, Skin Transplantation, Treatment Outcome

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