SynthesisInternational wound journal2020
The effectiveness and safety of beta antagonist in burned patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in International wound journal, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Beta-blocker treatment in the critically ill: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Annals of medicine · 2022Pooled it
- The effectiveness and safety of beta antagonist in burned patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis.International wound journal · 2020Pooled it
- State-of-the-art review: ß-blockade in critical illness.Intensive care medicine · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Beta antagonist is one of the most effective and the least toxic pharmacological treatments to attenuate the raised catecholamine effects for burned patients. To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of beta blocker compared with placebo or usual care in burned patients, a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) was conducted. We searched the database of PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science to 10 April 2020. Two investigators independently assessed articles for inclusion and exclusion criteria and selected studies for the final analysis. We performed the meta-analysis using a random-effect model. A total of 12 RCTs were included in the study, including 1887 patients. Propranolol-treated patients have a decrease in length of hospital stay in adults (weighted mean difference [WMD] = -9.06, 95% CIs = [-12.88, -5.24]) and prepare time of graft (WMD = -7.88, 95% CIs = [-12.27, -3.50]). Similarly, the use of propranolol could significantly decrease heart rate (WMD = -15.16, 95% CIs = [-20.37, -9.94]), rate pressure product (WMD = -1.32, 95% CIs = [-1.67, -0.97]), and mean arterial pressure (WMD = -2.75, 95% CIs = [-4.23, -1.26]). Moreover, there is no significant difference between propranolol and placebo with respect to mortality (risk difference [RD] = 0.00, 95% CIs [-0.03, 0.04]), sepsis (RD = -0.03, 95% CIs [-0.09, 0.03]), and events of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and acute stress disorder (RD = -0.01, 95% CIs [-0.07, 0.05]), and also, there is no significant difference in subgroup analysis based on age. The use of beta antagonist in burned patients does reduce length of hospital stay in adults, shorten the preparation time for graft, and reduce heart burden, without increasing mortality, sepsis, or PTSD compared with those who had usual care or placebo. So beta antagonist can be considered as an appropriate treatment strategy in burned patients. More prospective, randomised-controlled, multi-centre studies were needed to define their place in therapeutic algorithms.
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.