SynthesisPloS one2021
Methodology and applicability of the human contact burn injury model: A systematic review.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Optimizing burn wound procedural pain control, efficiency, and satisfaction through integrated nurse and physician education.Burns : journal of the International Society for Burn Injuries · 2024Review
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
Abstract
The contact burn injury model is an experimental contact thermode-based physiological pain model primarily applied in research of drug efficacy in humans. The employment of the contact burn injury model across studies has been inconsistent regarding essential methodological variables, challenging the validity of the model. This systematic review analyzes methodologies, outcomes, and research applications of the contact burn injury model. Based on these results, we propose an improved contact burn injury testing paradigm. A literature search was conducted (15-JUL-2020) using PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Google Scholar. Sixty-four studies were included. The contact burn injury model induced consistent levels of primary and secondary hyperalgesia. However, the analyses revealed variations in the methodology of the contact burn injury heating paradigm and the post-burn application of test stimuli. The contact burn injury model had limited testing sensitivity in demonstrating analgesic efficacy. There was a weak correlation between experimental and clinical pain intensity variables. The data analysis was limited by the methodological heterogenicity of the different studies and a high risk of bias across the studies. In conclusion, although the contact burn injury model provides robust hyperalgesia, it has limited efficacy in testing analgesic drug response. Recommendations for future use of the model are being provided, but further research is needed to improve the sensitivity of the contact burn injury method. The protocol for this review has been published in PROSPERO (ID: CRD42019133734).
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.