ArticleArchives of dermatological research2024
Comparing collagenase and silver sulfadiazine in deep second-degree burn treatment.
Article in Archives of dermatological research, 2024. 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.
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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The indications for collagenase ointment (CO) and its efficacy are not clearly established in the treatment of second-degree burn wounds. To evaluate the efficacy of CO versus silver sulfadiazine ointment (SSD) in the treatment of second-degree burn wounds. A total of 170 eligible patients with deep second-degree burns, aged 18-65 years, with injuries occurring within 48-96 h, and having a total wound area of less than 30% of the total body surface area were included from 5 centers in China. The primary outcome was the wound healing time, and the secondary outcomes were the clearance time of wound necrotic tissues, wound healing rate, and wound inflammation. The study included 85 patients in SSD group and 84 in CO group in the modified intention-to-treat (mITT) population. The median time of wound healing was comparable in both groups (10 days vs. 10.5 days P = 0.16). The time for wound necrotic tissue removal was significantly shortened by CO compared with SSD (5 vs. 10 days P < 0.01). Wound inflammation, pain, wound healing rate, and scar were compared with SSD (all P-values > 0.05). No adverse events, such as infection or allergic reactions to the drugs and materials used, were reported. Both CO and SSD could heal the burn wounds at 10 days of treatment. However, CO significantly shortened the time of wound necrotic tissue removal by 5 days. Trial Registration: ChiCTR2100046971.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38904701What 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.