ArticleInternational journal of burns and trauma2023
Evaluation of silver sulfadiazine 1%-cerium nitrate 2.2% cream efficacy and safety in moderate to severe burn patients: a single-blind randomized clinical trial.
Article in International journal of burns and trauma, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBurn injury is a major global health crisis. Topical antimicrobials such as silver sulfadiazine (SSD) are commonly used for superficial burn wounds. SSD has a broad-spectrum antimicrobial activity and also anti-inflammatory property, but also suffers from some limitations. Therefore, some studies suggest to add cerium nitrate (CN) to SSD, as an immunomodulatory and tanning agent with antitoxic properties, but its effect on patients' mortality, length of hospital stay, and bacterial colonization is contraversial.
objectivesIn this research, we evaluated the efficacy and safety of SSD 1%+CN 2.2% cream in patients with moderate to severe burn. MATERIAL AND
methodsTwenty-two patients who fulfilled the inclusion criteria randomly were assigned to the intervention (n=7) or control (n=15) group and received SSD 1%+CN 2.2% or SSD cream 1% respectively, once daily until the complete re-epithelization or prepration of the burned skin for grafting. Intesity of pain, re-epithelialization time, required interventions, laboratory and clinical findings and final outcome were recorded.
resultsThere was no significant difference in re-epithelialization time between the treatment and control groups (P>0.05). The same findings were reported about the required interventions and laboratory and clinical parameters. However, the final outcome and the pain score on third day were significantly better in the treatment group (P=0.017). On the other hand, all patients in the treatment group needed graft surgery.
conclusionUse of SSD 1%+CN 2.2% cream did not significantly improve re-epithelization time or infection occurrence and patients' pain, but also increased graft surgery rate in comparison with SDD 1% cream in moderate to severe burns.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38028560PMC10658154W4389178949What 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.