CHAMGAP
APPROVEDReviewed and approved by the Chamgap Editorial Team (2026-08-15). The draft was written by AI, the existence of all 1 cited sources was verified at the original page, and the verdict passed blind grading and adversarial audit. Methodology v0.7.
Verdict No. 2647 · Search date 2026-08-15 · Methodology v0.7

Paper tape,
does it really help with Prevention of hypertrophic scar formation?

30-Second Summary
C
Evidence Grade C · 54 · Safety caution
The contrast was large, but near-half attrition prevents confirmation
Four participants developed a localized red rash that was minor and transient. Stop use and seek care for irritation, allergy, or wound abnormalities.
What the
research shows
The grade is C with 54 points. A trial randomized 70 patients but retained only 39; hypertrophic scars at 12 weeks occurred in 0% with paper tape versus 41% with no treatment, with 13.6-fold higher odds in control. The contrast was large, but 44% did not complete the study and no prespecified single-primary hierarchy was verified.
What the
ads claim
Marketing should not display the large relative contrast while hiding 44% attrition. A cesarean-prevention result also cannot be generalized to other operations, treatment of established scars, or keloid treatment.
*

Useful facts when choosing a product

  • The trial applied paper tape to cesarean wounds for 12 weeks and compared it with no postoperative scar intervention.
  • Only 39 of 70 randomized participants completed the study.
  • Four taped participants developed a localized red rash that was minor and transient.
Gap Measurement · Verdict 2647 · C 54
What advertising claims
What independent, higher-quality research supports
△ GAP
01

What the research actually shows

The 2005 RCT by Atkinson JA, McKenna KT, Barnett AG, McGrath DJ, and Rudd M randomized 70 women after cesarean delivery to 12 weeks of paper tape or no scar intervention, but only 39 completed the study. At 12 weeks, hypertrophic scarring was 0% versus 41%, exact P=.003, and control-versus-tape OR was 13.6 (95% CI 3.6 to 66.9). Mean scar-volume difference was 0.16 cm3 (95% CI 0.00 to 0.29). The full-text funding and conflict statements were not obtained, and Europe PMC reports a null grantsList. PubMed indexes the article as non-US government research support, but that is an indexing category rather than a funding statement and cannot establish the funding source. This verdict therefore did not count independence as a strength.

02

Why this is classified as C (54)

A large clinical-event contrast was offset by 44% attrition, a small sample, no verified primary hierarchy, and only one trial, giving C with 54 points.

Counterpoint. After tape removal, one hypertrophic and four stretched scars appeared in the treatment group, leaving durability beyond 12 weeks uncertain.

Rejudgment record. Cross-check applied — Cross-checked 70 randomized, 39 completers, 0% versus 41%, the odds ratio and interval, and rash reports against the PubMed source

Scoring profile behind this grade
EndpointHHard endpoint - actual events such as death
ReplicationR1Single confirmatory trial
IndependenceI1Mixed funding sources
Effect sizeE+Meets the clinically important threshold

The scoring table and the verdict agree (C).

Sub-claim grades by effect

This ingredient is marketed for several effects. A single overall grade blends strong and weak claims together, so each effect is graded separately here. The overall grade reflects the strongest disconfirming or core claim.

Effect (sub-claim)GradeBasis
Prevention of hypertrophic scars after cesarean deliveryCThe result was 0% versus 41%, but only 39 completers were analyzed.
Treatment of established hypertrophic scars?This trial studied prevention, not treatment of established scars.

Cross-check — Codex and Claude

This verdict was drafted by Codex through literature review and source-existence checks, cross-checked through blind grading and adversarial audit, and settled by reapplying the methodology boundary rules. Cases with split grades were resolved through rejudgment.
03

Evidence Table

StudyDesignSampleFundingEndpointResultWeight
Atkinson JA, McKenna KT, Barnett AG, McGrath DJ, Rudd M. 2005Randomized trial of 12-week paper tape versus no treatment after cesarean delivery; outcome hierarchy not verified39Full-text funding and conflict statements not obtained; Europe PMC grantsList is null; PubMed non-US government research support is an indexing category and does not establish the funding sourceHypertrophic scar formation at 12 weeks and ultrasound scar volumeHypertrophic scarring 0% versus 41%, P=.003; control-versus-tape OR 13.6 (95% CI 3.6 to 66.9); scar-volume difference 0.16 cm3 (0.00 to 0.29)Only direct trial, limited by major attrition; independence was not counted as a strength
§

Receipt — 1 References

All 1 cited sources were verified for existence at the original page (as of 2026-08-15).

Atkinson JA, McKenna KT, Barnett AG, McGrath DJ, Rudd M. A randomized, controlled trial to determine the efficacy of paper tape in preventing hypertrophic scar formation in surgical incisions that traverse Langer's skin tension lines. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2005;116(6):1648-1656. PMID: 16267427. DOI: 10.1097/01.prs.0000187147.73963.a5. Trial registration: not verified.
checked
Draft and rewrite: Codex (AI) · Verification: Codex blind grading and adversarial audit · Final adjudication: Claude
Reviewed and approved: Chamgap Editorial Team · Approval date: 2026-08-15 · Corrections: none

Cite this verdict

Paper tape x prevention of hypertrophic cesarean scars Evidence Grade C card
[Chamgap] Paper tape x prevention of hypertrophic cesarean scars — Evidence Grade C·54. 1 cited sources checked. Source: https://chamgap.com/en/verdicts/skin-hair/paper-tape-cesarean-hypertrophic-scar-prevention/ · CC BY 4.0

CC BY 4.0 — free to use with attribution; do not distort grades, numbers, or verdict meaning.

!

What this document does and does not do

Chamgap is an information source. It reports what research has and has not confirmed; it does not tell readers what to take or buy. That decision belongs to readers and, when needed, medical or legal professionals. This verdict reflects literature available up to the search date and may change as new research appears. Nothing here is medical advice.