SynthesisJournal of wound care2019
The role of collagenase ointment in acute burns: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Journal of wound care, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 29 citations in OpenAlex.
- The expanding role of protease therapeutics (2012-2026): from replacement therapies to immune system modulation and beyond.The Biochemical journal · 2026Review
- Effects of Collagenase Preconditioning on Partially Incised Rat Tendon Treated with Light-Emitting Diodes and Platelet-Rich Plasma.Biomedicines · 2025Article
- Comparing collagenase and silver sulfadiazine in deep second-degree burn treatment.Archives of dermatological research · 2024Article
- Application of microbial enzymes in medicine and industry: current status and future perspectives.Future microbiology · 2024Review
- In Vitro Study of a NovelCells · 2023Article
- Enzyme Therapy: Current Challenges and Future Perspectives.International journal of molecular sciences · 2021Review
- Clostridium Collagenase Impact on Zone of Stasis Stabilization and Transition to Healthy Tissue in Burns.International journal of molecular sciences · 2021Article
- Historical Perspectives on the Development of Current Standards of Care for Enzymatic Debridement.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objective: A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to summarise the state of the literature in regard to the efficacy and uses of clostridial collagenase ointment (CCO) in the burn patient.
method: A systematic review of articles available on PubMed, Scopus and OvidSP Medline was performed. Keywords used in the search process included burns, thermal injury, collagenase, enzymatic debridement, wound care. Reviews, case reports, independent abstracts, consensus and opinion papers were excluded. A meta-analysis was performed for articles fitting inclusion criteria.
results: Following screening, six relevant articles were identified for systematic review. Few studies, with limited sample sizes, argue that CCO may be an effective debriding agent. It may also accelerate wound healing and avoid the pain associated with mechanical debridement. CCO lacks antimicrobial activity but the risk of burn wound infection does not appear to be significantly different than when using silver-impregnated products. CCO is more expensive than traditional wound care products but may help halt burn depth conversion and prevent the need for surgery.
conclusion: CCO may be a safe and effective debridement agent for burn wounds with respect to decreasing wound healing time and minimising pain without increasing the risk of infection. It should be used on a case-by-case basis due to its financial cost, which may be offset by its ability to manage burns non-operatively.
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.