Trial reportBMC surgery2024
The impact of an open-label design on human amniotic membranes vs. silver sulfadiazine dressings for second-degree burns: a randomized controlled clinical trial.
Trial report in BMC surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundBurn wounds require optimal medical management due to associated psycho-emotional and socioeconomic impacts and severe pain. The use of synthetic and biological dressings improves healing and reduces burn wound complications. The present study aimed to compare the outcomes of using human amniotic membrane (hAM) dressings and conventional silver sulfadiazine (SSDZ) ointment dressings in the management of second-degree burn wounds.
methodsFifty patients who participated in this clinical trial were divided into two groups via simple randomization. All the enrolled patients, who had burnt in the last 24 h, had thermal damage mechanisms and were suffering from less than 20% second-degree heat-burn wounds on the skin surface. The target group (n = 25) was treated with hAM, and the control group (n = 25) was treated with SSDZ ointment. The researcher-designed checklist was used to determine the clinical performance in the follow-up assessments on days 7, 14, and 30.
resultsNo significant differences were detected in terms of sex, age, or percentage of burn wounds (p > 0.05). Wound epithelialization at days 7, 14, and 30, scar formation, wound pigmentation, pain severity, analgesia requirements, and hospital stay length (on day 30) were significantly lower in the target group (treated with hAM) than in the control group (treated with SSDZ ointment) (p < 0.05). However, treatment costs in the target group ($170) were significantly higher than those in the control group ($71) (p < 0.001).
conclusionDespite its higher cost, hAM, as a technology-based therapy dressing, demonstrates superiority over SSDZ ointment in terms of wound healing and pain management.
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.