Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32022363›Full record

Trial reportWound repair and regeneration : official publication of the Wound Healing Society [and] the European Tissue Repair Society2020

Long-term quality of life and cost-effectiveness of treatment of partial thickness burns: A randomized controlled trial comparing enzyme alginogel vs silver sulfadiazine (FLAM study).

Zjir M Rashaan, Pieta Krijnen, Kelly Aa Kwa, Margriet E van Baar, Roelf S Breederveld, M Elske van den Akker-van Marle

Open access · hybridAbstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Wound repair and regeneration : official publication of the Wound Healing Society [and] the European Tissue Repair Society, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 27% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Long-term quality of life and cost-effectiveness of treatment of partial thickness burns: A randomized controlled trial comparing enzyme alginogel vs silver sulfadiazine (FLAM study).Wound repair and regeneration : official publication of the Wound Healing Society [and] the European Tissue Repair Society · 2020
    Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Zjir M RashaanDepartment of Surgery, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-2127-7212
Pieta KrijnenDepartment of Surgery, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, Netherlands.
Kelly Aa KwaDepartment of Surgery, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, Netherlands.
Margriet E van BaarAssociation of Dutch Burn Centres, Maasstad Hospital, Rotterdam, Netherlands.
Roelf S BreederveldDepartment of Surgery, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, Netherlands.
M Elske van den Akker-van MarleDepartment of Biomedical Data Sciences, Medical Decision Making, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, Netherlands.
Leiden University Medical Center · NLErasmus MC · NLLeiden University · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The clinical effectiveness and scar quality of the randomized controlled trial comparing enzyme alginogel with silver sulfadiazine (SSD) for treatment of partial thickness burns were previously reported. Enzyme alginogel did not lead to faster wound healing (primary outcome) or less scar formation. In the current study, the health-related quality of life (HRQoL), costs, and cost-effectiveness of enzyme alginogel compared with SSD in the treatment of partial thickness burns were studied. HRQoL was evaluated using the Burn Specific Health Scale-Brief (BSHS-B) and the EQ-5D-5L questionnaire 1 week before discharge and at 3, 6, and 12 months postburn. Costs were studied from a societal perspective (health care and nonhealth-care costs) for a follow-up period of 1 year. A cost-effectiveness analysis was performed using cost-effectiveness acceptability curves and comparing differences in societal costs and Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALYs) at 1 year postburn. Forty-one patients were analyzed in the enzyme alginogel group and 48 patients in the SSD group. None of the domains of BSHS-B showed a statistically significant difference between the treatment groups. Also, no statistically significant difference in QALYs was found between enzyme alginogel and SSD (difference -0.03; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.09 to 0.03; P = .30). From both the health care and the societal perspective, the difference in costs between enzyme alginogel and SSD was not statistically significant: the difference in health-care costs was €3210 (95% CI, €-1247 to €7667; P = .47) and in societal costs was €3377 (95% CI €-6229 to €12 982; P = .49). The nonsignificant differences in costs and quality-adjusted life-years in favor of SSD resulted in a low probability (<25%) that enzyme alginogel is cost-effective compared to SSD. In conclusion, there were no significant differences in quality of life between both treatment groups. Enzyme alginogel is unlikely to be cost-effective compared with SSD in the treatment of partial thickness burns.

Indexed as

Quality of LifeAdultAgedAlginatesAnti-Infective Agents, LocalBurnsCost-Benefit AnalysisDrug CombinationsFemaleGlucose OxidaseHumansLactoperoxidaseMaleMiddle AgedPolyethylene GlycolsSilver SulfadiazineAlginatesAnti-Infective Agents, LocalDrug CombinationsFlaminalGlucose OxidaseLactoperoxidasePolyethylene GlycolsSilver Sulfadiazine

Identifiers

PMID32022363
PMCPMC7217050
OpenAlexW3005461439

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.