ArticleEuropean journal of pediatrics2024
Comparison of the effectiveness of three different skin substitutes for the treatment of pediatric burns.
Article in European journal of pediatrics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Scalp as a Donor Site in Pediatric Burns: Systematic Review of the Literature and Proposal of a Management Algorithm.European burn journal · 2026Review
- Metabolic and Hormonal Changes in Pediatric Burn Patients: Mechanisms, Evidence, and Care Strategies.European burn journal · 2025Review
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Early debridement of partial-thickness burns and coverage with skin substitutes is currently the standard of care in children, although there is currently no "gold standard" skin substitute. Our aim is to compare the effectiveness of three different skin substitutes, analyzing the medium- and long-term outcomes.
methodsA retrospective study was conducted on burn patients under 18 years admitted to our Burn Unit between 2015 and 2021, who were divided into 3 groups according to the type of skin substitute used (EZ-derm®, Biobrane®, and Suprathel®). Demographic and clinical data and short- and long-term outcomes were analyzed. Effectiveness was analyzed by escharectomy and grafting rate during acute management and long-term follow-up reintervention rate. A total of 378 patients were included (179 EZ-derm® group, 107 Biobrane® group, and 92 Suprathel® group). No differences in demographics or burn characteristics were observed between the groups. Patients treated with Suprathel® had a significantly shorter hospital stay (median 4 days (IQR 2-9)), a lower rate of escharectomy and grafting during acute management (21.1%), and a lower long-term follow-up reintervention rate (18.5%) when compared to the EZ-derm® group (median stay 9 days (IQR 6-13); escharectomy and graft 24.6% and reintervention 26.8%) and to the Biobrane® group (median stay 9 days (IQR 7-14); escharectomy and graft 32.1% and reintervention 26.2%).
conclusionTreatment of partial-thickness burns with Suprathel® is associated with a shorter hospital stay, lower need for escharectomy and grafting, and lower need for long-term reintervention. Therefore, it should be considered the treatment of choice for pediatric partial-thickness burns. WHAT IS KNOWN: • Different types of skin substitutes are available for the treatment of skin burns in paediatric patients. WHAT IS NEW: • Suprathel® is linked to a reduction in hospital stays, a lower need for escharectomy and grafting, and a lower likelihood of requiring long-term re-interventions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39671108What 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.