SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2013
Topical treatment for facial burns.
Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Topical treatment for facial burns.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2020Pooled it
- Systematic review of clinical outcome reporting in randomised controlled trials of burn care.BMJ open · 2019Pooled it
- Poor methodological quality and reporting standards of systematic reviews in burn care management.International wound journal · 2017Pooled it
- Antibiotic prophylaxis for preventing burn wound infection.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2013Pooled it
- Pharmaceutical Prophylaxis of Scarring with Emphasis on Burns: A Review of Preclinical and Clinical Studies.Advances in wound care · 2022Review
- A Scoping Review of the Evidence for the Medicinal Use of Natural Honey in Animals.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2020Article
- Protocol for the development of a core indicator set for reporting burn wound infection in trials: ICon-B study.BMJ open · 2019Article
- Agreement on what to measure in randomised controlled trials in burn care: study protocol for the development of a core outcome set.BMJ open · 2017Article
- Article
- A comprehensive evidence-based review on the role of topicals and dressings in the management of skin scarring.Archives of dermatological research · 2015Review
- Facial burns - our experience.Materia socio-medica · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundBurn injuries are an important health problem. They occur frequently in the head and neck region - the area central to a person's identity, that provides our most expressive means of communication. Topical interventions are currently the cornerstone of treatment of partial-thickness burns to the face.
objectivesTo assess the effects of topical interventions on wound healing in people with facial burns of any depth. SEARCH
methodsWe searched the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (searched 12 November 2012); the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 10); Ovid MEDLINE (1950 to November Week 1 2012); Ovid MEDLINE - In-process & Other Non-Indexed Citations (searched November 12, 2012); Ovid EMBASE (1980 to 2012 Week 45); and EBSCO CINAHL (1982 to 9 November 2012) for relevant trials. We did not apply date or language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the effects of topical treatment for facial burns were eligible for inclusion in this review. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed and included the references identified by the search strategy. Included trials were assessed using a risk of bias form, and data were extracted using a standardised data extraction sheet. For dichotomous and continuous outcomes, we calculated risk ratios and mean differences, respectively, both with 95% confidence intervals (CI). MAIN
resultsWe included five RCTs, comprising a total of 119 participants. Two studies compared two different antimicrobial agents and three compared a biological or bioengineered skin substitute with an antimicrobial agent. All studies had small sample sizes and were at high risk of bias. Heterogeneity of interventions and outcomes prevented pooling of data. In three studies time to complete wound healing was significantly shorter for those using a skin substitute than for those using an antibacterial agent, but the quality of the evidence was low. Pain was significantly reduced with the use of skin substitutes in both studies that reported this outcome in all groups, range mean differences -2.00 (95% CI -3.82 to -0.18) to -4.00 (95% CI -5.05 to -2.95) on a 10-point scale. AUTHORS'
conclusionsThere is insufficient high quality research and evidence to enable conclusions to be drawn about the effects of topical interventions on wound healing in people with facial burns.
Indexed as
Identifiers
23440823What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.