Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39600025›Full record

ReviewEuropean burn journal2023

Efficacy and Complications Associated with Acellular Dermal Substitute Use in the Treatment of Acute Burns: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Isobel Press, Naiem Moiemen, Zubair Ahmed

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in European burn journal, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Dermal Scaffolds in Complex Extremity Wound Reconstruction: Impact of Early Application on Grafting and Flap Requirements-A Systematic Review.Wound repair and regeneration : official publication of the Wound Healing Society [and] the European Tissue Repair Society
    Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

3 authors.

Isobel PressCollege of Medical and Dental Science, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham B15 2TT, UK.ORCID 0009-0006-1574-9745
Naiem MoiemenInstitute of Inflammation and Ageing, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham B15 2TT, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-0836-5138
Zubair AhmedInstitute of Inflammation and Ageing, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham B15 2TT, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-6267-6442

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Over several decades, skin substitutes have become an essential tool in acute burn surgery, particularly in major burns, where scarce donor tissues can limit the availability of autografts. This systematic review aimed to assess the efficacy, complication rates, and long-term outcomes of acellular dermal substitutes in acute burns and compare these to conventional skin grafting methods of coverage. A search of PubMed, Web of Science, and CENTRAL for appropriate randomized controlled trials (RCTs), non-randomized trials, and observational studies was conducted. Following screening, nine RCTs and seven observational studies fulfilled our inclusion and exclusion criteria. Our primary outcomes, which were graft take and incidence of infection, found no significant difference between the substitute and control procedures in a meta-analysis (

Indexed as

artificial dermisburndermal regeneration templatedermal substituteskin substitute

Identifiers

PMID39600025
PMCPMC11571822

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.