ArticleBurns & trauma2018
Prospective randomised controlled trial of Algisite™ M, Cuticerin™, and Sorbact® as donor site dressings in paediatric split-thickness skin grafts.
Article in Burns & trauma, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 2 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 32 citations in OpenAlex.
- Interventions for postburn pruritus.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024Pooled it
- Hydrogel dressings for donor sites of split-thickness skin grafts.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023Pooled it
- Randomized clinical trial of negative pressure wound therapy as an adjunctive treatment for small-area thermal burns in children.The British journal of surgery · 2020Trial
- Compounds of Marine Origin with Possible Applications as Healing Agents.Marine drugs · 2024Review
- Article
- The feasibility of negative pressure wound therapy versus standard dressings in paediatric hand and foot burns protocol: a pilot, single-centre, randomised control trial.Pilot and feasibility studies · 2023Article
- Article
- A Randomized Controlled Trial of Three Advanced Wound Dressings in Split-Thickness Skin Grafting Donor Sites-A Personalized Approach?Journal of personalized medicine · 2022Article
- Short-term outcomes of EXCOR Paediatric implantation.Interactive cardiovascular and thoracic surgery · 2022Article
- Systematic literature review of topical local anaesthesia or analgesia to donor site wounds.Burns & trauma · 2022Article
- Sulfated Polysaccharides from Marine Algae as a Basis of Modern Biotechnologies for Creating Wound Dressings: Current Achievements and Future Prospects.Biomedicines · 2020Review
- First-Line Interactive Wound Dressing Update: A Comprehensive Review of the Evidence.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2020Review
- Prospective randomised controlled trial of Algisite™ M, Cuticerin™, and Sorbact® as donor site dressings in paediatric split-thickness skin grafts.Burns & trauma · 2018Article
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
backgroundThis is a parallel three-arm prospective randomised controlled trial (RCT) comparing Algisite™ M, Cuticerin™, and Sorbact® as donor site dressings in paediatric split-thickness skin grafts (STSG). All three were in current use within the Pegg Leditschke Children's Burn centre (PLCBC), the largest paediatric burns centre in Queensland, Australia. Our objective was to find the best performing dressing, following on from previous trials designed to rationalise dressings for the burn wound itself.
methodsAll children for STSG, with thigh donor sites, were considered for enrolment in the trial. Primary outcome measures were days to re-epithelialisation, and pain. Secondary measures were cost, itch, and scarring at 3 and 6 months. Patients and parents were blinded to group assignment. Blinding of assessors was possible with the dressing
resultsThere were 101 patients randomised to the Algisite™ M (33), Cuticerin™ (32), and Sorbact® (36) arms between April 2015 and July 2016. All were analysed for time to re-epithelialisation. Pain scores were not available for all time points in all patients. There were no significant differences between the three arms regarding pain, or time to re-epithelialisation. There were no significant differences for the secondary outcomes of itch, scarring, or cost. Regression analyses demonstrated faster re-epithelialisation in younger patients and decreased donor site scarring at 3 and 6 months with thinner STSG. There were no adverse effects noted.
conclusionsThere are no data supporting a preference for one trial dressing over the others, in donor site wounds (DSW) in children. Thinner skin grafts lead to less donor site scarring in children. Younger patients have faster donor site wound healing.
trial registrationAustralia and New Zealand Clinical Trials Register (ACTRN12614000380695).Royal Children's Hospital Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC/14/QRCH/36).University of Queensland Medical Research Ethics Committee (#2014000447).
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.