Evidence map›Paper›PMID 15266531›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2004

Community-based interventions for the prevention of burns and scalds in children.

C Turner, A Spinks, R McClure, J Nixon

Open access · bronzeAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
5.3field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 106 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Mixed-methods process evaluation of SafeTea: a multimedia campaign to prevent hot drink scalds in young children and promote burn first aid.Injury prevention : journal of the International Society for Child and Adolescent Injury Prevention · 2021
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Prevention of burns in developing countries.Annals of burns and fire disasters · 2012
    Article
  12. Review
  13. The theory of community based health and safety programs: a critical examination.Injury prevention : journal of the International Society for Child and Adolescent Injury Prevention · 2006
    Article
  14. Review
  15. Burden of Childhood Injuries in India and Possible Public Health Interventions: A Systematic Review.Indian journal of community medicine : official publication of Indian Association of Preventive & Social Medicine
    Review
  16. Variations in U.S. pediatric burn injury hospitalizations using the national burn repository data.Journal of burn care & research : official publication of the American Burn Association
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

C Turner
A Spinks
R McClure
J Nixon
University of Queensland · AUGriffith University · AUMonash University · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBurns and scalds are a significant cause of morbidity and mortality in children. Successful counter-measures to prevent burn and scald-related injury have been identified. However, evidence indicating the successful roll-out of these counter-measures into the wider community is lacking. Community-based interventions in the form of multi-strategy, multi-focused programmes are hypothesised to result in a reduction in population-wide injury rates. This review tests this hypothesis with regards to burn and scald injury in children.

objectivesTo assess the effectiveness of community-based interventions, defined as coordinated, multi-strategy initiatives, for reducing burns and scalds in children in children aged 0-14 years. SEARCH STRATEGY: The search strategy was based on electronic searches, handsearches of selected journals and snowballing from reference lists of selected publications. SELECTION CRITERIA: Studies were independently screened for inclusion by two reviewers. Included studies were those that reported changes in medically attended burn and scald-related injury rates in a paediatric population (age 0 - 14 years), following the implementation of a controlled community-based intervention. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were independently extracted by two reviewers. Meta-analysis was not appropriate, due to the heterogeneity of the included studies. MAIN

resultsOf 32 identified studies, only three met the criteria for inclusion. Only one of these three studies showed a significant decrease in paediatric burn and scald injury in the intervention community compared with the control community. The failure of the other two studies to show a positive result may have been due to limited time-frame for the intervention and/or failure to adequately implement the counter-measures in the communities. REVIEWERS'

conclusionsThere are a very limited number of research studies allowing conclusions to be drawn about the effectiveness of community-based injury prevention programmes to prevent burns and scalds in children. There is a pressing need to evaluate high-quality community-based intervention programmes based on efficacious counter-measures to reduce burns and scalds in children. It is important that a framework for considering the problem of burns/scalds in children from a prevention perspective be articulated, and that an evidence-based suite of interventions be combined to create programme guidelines suitable for implementation in communities throughout the world.

Indexed as

Accident PreventionBurnsChildCommunity ParticipationHumansProgram Evaluation

Identifiers

PMID15266531
PMCPMC6464795
OpenAlexW1758419607

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.