SynthesisEuropean journal of medical research2023
The clinical outcomes of xenografts in the treatment of burn patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in European journal of medical research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- RNA Coding and Transcriptional Regulation in Skin Repair: Insights from Single-Cell Profiling and Implications for Organoid-Based Regenerative Strategies.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Review
- Evaluation of the Efficacy of Fish Skin Grafts as Wound Dressings: A Systematic Review.European burn journal · 2025Review
- Therapeutic Potential of Nanocarrier Mediated Delivery of Peptides for Wound Healing: Current Status, Challenges and Future Prospective.AAPS PharmSciTech · 2024Review
- Rosuvastatin accelerates the healing process of partial-thickness burn wounds in rats by reducing TNF-α levels.Archives of medical sciences. Atherosclerotic diseases · 2024Article
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 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAlthough autografts are not feasible in patients with extensive burn wounds, allografts and xenografts can be used for temporary coverage. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we compared the outcomes of xenografts and the standard treatment of burn wounds.
methodsInternational online databases were searched for English articles comparing xenografts with routine treatment in the burn patients. The random-effects model was used to estimate standardized mean differences (SMD) or odds ratios (OR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI).
resultsFrom a total of 7144 records, 14 studies were included in our review after screening by title and abstracts followed by full-texts. No significant difference in hospital stays was found between the mammalian xenografts and control groups (SMD [95% CI] = - 0.18 [- 0.54-0.18]). The mean number of dressing changes was significantly lower in both mammalian xenografts compared to the controls (SMD [95% CI] = - 1.01 [- 1.61-- 0.41]) and fish xenografts compared to controls (SMD [95% CI] = - 6.16 [- 7.65-- 4.66]). In the fish xenografts, re-epithelialization time was significantly lower compared to controls (SMD [95% CI] = - 1.18 [- 2.23-- 0.14]).
conclusionsXenografts showed a significantly lower number of dressing changes and fish xenografts showed significant benefit in re-epithelialization compared to routine treatment. The beneficial results of xenografts suggest further research in the use of different types of xenografts in patients with extensive burn.
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.