ArticleAnnals of burns and fire disasters2018
Antiseptics for burns: a review of the evidence.
Article in Annals of burns and fire disasters, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Burn Injuries in Jordan: A 5-Year Retrospective Analysis of Presentation, Management and Hospital Mortality.International wound journal · 2026Article
- Sustainable Primary Cell Banking for Topical Compound Cytotoxicity Assays: Protocol Validation on Novel Biocides and Antifungals for Optimized Burn Wound Care.European burn journal · 2024Article
- Phenotypic Modulation of Adipose-Derived Stem Cells and Fibroblasts Treated with Povidone-Iodine and Chlorhexidine in Mono and Coculture Models.Biomedicines · 2023Article
- Robbing Peter to Pay Paul: Chlorhexidine gluconate demonstrates short-term efficacy and long-term cytotoxicity.Wound repair and regeneration : official publication of the Wound Healing Society [and] the European Tissue Repair Society · 2022Article
- What COVID-19 taught us: New opportunities and pathways from telemedicine and novel antiseptics in wound healing.International wound journal · 2022Article
- Review of History of Basic Principles of Burn Wound Management.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2022Review
- Comparative in vitro evaluation of the antimicrobial activities of povidone-iodine and other commercially available antiseptics against clinically relevant pathogens.GMS hygiene and infection control · 2021Article
- Perineal Diagnostic Microbial Swabs As A Predictive Parameter In Pediatric Burn Injury.Annals of burns and fire disasters · 2020Article
- Silver Sulfadiazine's Effect on Keratin-19 Expression as Stem Cell Marker in Burn Wound Healing.BioMedicine · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The burn patient is easily subject to colonization by microorganisms and infection, due to reduced defence capabilities and immune dysfunction. Moreover, burn units and intensive care units are characterized by a selection of resistant bacterial strains. If the burn patient is not adequately cared for in terms of infection prevention and control, sepsis is inevitable. Nowadays, several different antiseptics and antiseptic dressings are used in the topical treatment of burns, each with positive and negative effects. Topical antiseptics allow control of bacterial load, but they can also cause cytotoxicity and reduce healing rate. Choosing the most effective antiseptic is crucial to preventing infection from compromising wound healing. The present study aims to review the available literature in order to highlight evidence on the use of topical antiseptics in burns.
Indexed as
Identifiers
30863253PMC6367858What 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.