Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37748846›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2023

Efficacy and optimal dose of acetic acid to treat colonised burns wounds: protocol for a pilot randomised controlled trial.

Rizwana Imran, Tarek Hassouna, Gurneet Sur, Anna Casey, Victoria Homer, Darren Barton, Kristian Brock, Khaled Altarrah, Naiem Moiemen

Open access · goldAbstract readClinical Trial Protocol
In one paragraph

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 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 25% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
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

9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Rizwana ImranBurn Centre, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-1641-2478
Tarek HassounaBurn Centre, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK.
Gurneet SurCancer Research Clinical Trials Unit (CRCTU), Devices, Drugs, Diagnostics and Biomarkers (D3B), University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Anna CaseyCancer Research Clinical Trials Unit (CRCTU), Devices, Drugs, Diagnostics and Biomarkers (D3B), University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Victoria HomerCancer Research Clinical Trials Unit (CRCTU), Devices, Drugs, Diagnostics and Biomarkers (D3B), University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Darren BartonCancer Research Clinical Trials Unit (CRCTU), Devices, Drugs, Diagnostics and Biomarkers (D3B), University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Kristian BrockCancer Research Clinical Trials Unit (CRCTU), Devices, Drugs, Diagnostics and Biomarkers (D3B), University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Khaled AltarrahBurn Centre, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK.
Naiem MoiemenBurn Centre, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK naiem.moiemen2@nhs.net.
Cancer Research UK Clinical Trials Unit · GBUniversity Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust · GB

Funding

Cancer Research UK 25354Department of Health
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionDespite of recent advancement in the burns wound management, burn wound infection (BWI) is still one of the major cause of burns mortality. Patients who survive their burns injury still suffers from BWI related complication like delayed wound healing and poor scarring. BWI has been treated by application of topical antimicrobial agents or systemic antibiotics. Due to the global risk of developing systemic antibiotics resistance, medical research focuses on identifying single topical agent which has effective antimicrobial activity, easily available and cost effective. One such agent is acetic acid (AA). AA has been used as a topical antibacterial agent for the treatment of burns wounds for many years and has shown to have activity against gram-negative organisms including

objectiveTo investigate the efficacy and tolerability of 0.5% and 2% of AA when applied to colonised burns wounds for 3 days after admittance to the Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a double-blinded, prospective, randomised, controlled, single-centre trial. Patients will be screened for eligibility in the inpatient area and those who are found to be eligible will be randomly assigned to one of two treatment groups: group 1: 0.5% AA (10 patients); group 2: 2% AA (10 patients); total number: 20 patients. OUTCOME MEASURES: ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: AceticA trial protocol was approved by the National Research Ethics Service (West Midlands-Edgbaston Research Ethics Committee; 17/WM/0407; IRAS 234132). This article refers to protocol version 5.0 dated 6 July 2020. The analysed results will be presented at national and international conferences related to management of burn patients. The generated articles based on the trial results will be submitted to peer review journals for publication. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN11636684.

Indexed as

Acetic AcidBurnsAnti-Bacterial AgentsHumansPilot ProjectsProspective StudiesRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicAcetic AcidAnti-Bacterial AgentsPlastic & reconstructive surgerySURGERYWOUND MANAGEMENT

Identifiers

PMID37748846
PMCPMC10533794
OpenAlexW4387012438

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.