ArticleBiomedical reports2016
A randomized controlled trial to compare the effects of liquid versus powdered recombinant human growth hormone in treating patients with severe burns.
Article in Biomedical reports, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Systematic review of clinical outcome reporting in randomised controlled trials of burn care.BMJ open · 2019Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Recombinant human growth hormone (rhGH) promotes protein utilization and synthesis, and is widely used as a therapy to treat severe burns. The present randomized controlled trial evaluated the effects of different forms of rhGH on patients with severe burns. A total of 29 adult severe burns patients were enrolled between February 2009 and November 2011, and randomly assigned to either treatment group (T, liquid rhGH) or control group (C, powder rhGH). From days 5 to 7 following the infliction of burns, both patient groups received rhGH at 0.067 mg/kg/d, once for 10 days. Median serum pre-albumin levels increased in both groups following treatment, the elevation from baseline was significantly higher in the T group on day 10 compared to the C group (88 mg/l vs. 65 mg/l, P=0.046). C-reactive protein, fasting plasma glucose and body weight decreased in both groups. Body weight was significantly lower in the T compared to the C group at baseline, Day 5 and Day 10 (P=0.046, P=0.018 and P=0.006, respectively), however the decrease from baseline levels were not significantly different. Wound healing time was similar between groups (P=0.270). In conclusion the early use of liquid rather than powder rhGH may be more beneficial for treating adult patients with severe burns.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.