ArticleBMJ open2023
Protocol for a feasibility, acceptability and safety study of the PICO device (negative pressure wound therapy) in acute paediatric burns.
Article in BMJ open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Negative pressure wound therapy in children: outcomes across a heterogeneous wound cohort.Pediatric surgery international · 2026Article
- Effectiveness of Negative Pressure Wound Therapy in Burns in Pediatric and Adolescent Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Pediatric Burn Treatment with Non-Thermal Atmospheric Plasma and EpifastEuropean burn journal · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionNegative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) in acute burn care may decrease the time to re-epithelialisation by more than 20%. Despite this, the perceived burden of use; including therapeutic, physical and financial, have limited the use of NPWT in acute burn care. This might be minimised by using the small, ultraportable, single-use NPWT device PICO as opposed to larger devices, which to date has never been studied in acute burn care. This research will; therefore, primarily assess the feasibility, acceptability and safety of PICO in paediatric burns. Secondary outcomes include time to re-epithelialisation, pain, itch, cost and scar formation. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This protocol details a clinical trial methodology and is pre-results. This single site, prospective, pilot randomised controlled trial will be conducted in an Australian quaternary paediatric burns centre. Participants must be aged ≤16 years, otherwise well and managed within 24 hours of sustaining a burn that fits beneath a PICO dressing. Thirty participants will be randomised to one of three groups: group A: Mepitel and ACTICOAT, group B: Mepitel, ACTICOAT and PICO and group C: Mepitel, ACTICOAT Flex and PICO. Patient outcomes will be recorded at each dressing change to assess efficacy and safety outcomes until 3 months postburn wound re-epithelialisation. Surveys, randomisation and data storage will be undertaken via online platforms and physical data storage collated at the Centre for Children's Health Research, Brisbane, Australia. Analysis will be done by using StataSE 17.0 statistical software. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics has been obtained from Queensland Health and Griffith Human Research Ethics committees including a site-specific approval. These data will be disseminated via clinical meetings, conference presentations and peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12622000009718.
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.