Trial reportBMC medicine2023
Larval therapy vs conventional silver dressings for full-thickness burns: a randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in BMC medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- What's New in Wound Healing: Treatment Advances and Microbial Insights.American journal of clinical dermatology · 2025Review
- Efficacy of Larval Therapy for Wounds: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Expanding access to maggot containment dressings through redesign and innovation.International wound journal · 2025Article
- An Overview of Recent Developments in the Management of Burn Injuries.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Review
- Maggot debridement therapy for burns surgery avoidance in an elderly and comorbid patient: A case report.Scars, burns & healingArticle
- Burn Debridment - Approach and Review.Current health sciences journalReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis is the first clinical trial to investigate the effectiveness of maggot debridement therapy (MDT) for full-thickness burn injuries in comparison to conventional silver dressings.
methodsThirty-one cases with full-thickness (grade III based on ICD-10 classifications version 2019) burns were assigned into larval therapy (15 cases) and conventional treatment (16 cases) groups. Participants in the MDT group have received loose larvae on days 0, 2, 4, and 6, while controls received a conventional regimen comprised of sharp debridement, silver sulfadiazine, antibiotic therapy, and offloading every day. The primary and secondary outcomes were defined as the time to debridement (from admission to skin autograft) and time to healing (from admission to complete healing post-skin autograft). Patients in two groups were also compared in terms of necrosis resolution, granulation, and granulation/necrosis (g/n) ratio during study time periods.
resultsParticipants who received larvae had significantly decreased necrosis on days 2 (p = 0.028) and 4 (p = 0.023) compared to those who received control treatment. Significant differences (p < 0.001) were also observed for granulation between the two groups in favor of MDT and the fold changes of g/n in the larvae group were 5, 15, and 13 times higher than that for the conventional regimen on days 2, 4, and 6 of treatment, respectively. Strikingly, a subgroup analysis of high necrotic burns (necrosis > 50%) revealed a significant improvement (p < 0.001) for MDT compared to the control treatment. There were also significant differences (p < 0.001) for the time to debridement and time to healing between the two groups. However, bacterial contamination did not show significant changes between the two treatment regimens.
conclusionsOur findings revealed that MDT has a favorable superiority over conventional regimen for the treatment of grade-III burns, and thus further clinical trials with larger sample size are warranted to confirm these results.
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.