Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40562552›Full record

SynthesisBMJ open2025

Exploring evidence gaps in clinical trials in thermal burns care: an umbrella review.

Hollie Sarah Richards, Riaz Qureshi, Suzannah Kinsella, Sarah Dawson, Robert Staruch, Alice Lee, Jill Meirte, Janine Evans, Krissie Stiles, Niall Martin and 4 more

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Longitudinal biomarker trajectories and their prognostic utility for 21-day mortality in burn patients with sepsis: a retrospective cohort study.Inflammation research : official journal of the European Histamine Research Society ... [et al.] · 2026
    Article
  2. Review
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

14 authors.

Hollie Sarah RichardsNIHR Bristol Biomedical Research Centre, University of Bristol Medical School, Bristol, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9181-7005
Riaz QureshiDepartment of Ophthalmology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, Colorado, USA.
Suzannah KinsellaJames Lind Alliance, Southampton, UK.
Sarah DawsonPopulation Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Robert StaruchOxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK.
Alice LeeSt Andrew's Centre for Plastic Surgery and Burns, Mid and South Essex NHS Foundation Trust, Basildon, UK.
Jill MeirteDepartment of Rehabilitation Sciences and Physiotherapy, University of Antwerp, Antwerpen, Belgium.
Janine EvansThe Welsh Centre for Burns & Plastic Surgery, Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University Health Board, Swansea, UK.
Krissie StilesPlastic Surgery, King's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Niall MartinChelsea and Westminster Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Baljit DheansaDepartment of Plastic Surgery and Burns, Queen Victoria Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, East Grinstead, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1418-9986
Jane BlazebyNIHR Bristol Biomedical Research Centre, University of Bristol Medical School, Bristol, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3354-3330
Jelena SavovićPopulation Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK jelena.savovic@bristol.ac.uk.
Amber YoungPopulation Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGaps in research evidence lead to research waste. In burns treatment, there is a paucity of reliable evidence or data. This contributes to inconsistent patient care, especially on a global scale, where low-resource countries often lack access to the latest research advancements. This umbrella review was undertaken as part of the James Lind Alliance Priorities in Global Burns Research Prioritisation Setting Partnership (PSP) and aimed to identify and assess the quality of evidence in thermal burns care. The objective was to map which interventions in thermal burns care are supported by a reliable evidence base and for which the evidence is lacking.

methodsSystematic reviews of randomised controlled trials in thermal burns were identified and assessed using reliability criteria determined a priori. Multiple systematic review databases were searched in June 2023, including the Cochrane Library, KSR Evidence database and NIHR Journals Library. Summary of findings and, where available, Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation was used to assess certainty of evidence. Reliable reviews were mapped onto clinical categories identified by patients, carers and healthcare professionals as part of the PSP.

results232 systematic reviews were identified, of which 83 met reliability criteria and were included. The main reason for not meeting reliability criteria was poorly defined eligibility criteria (n=128). Of the 83 reliable reviews, most were conducted in pain (n=28) or wound management (n=14) and acute care (n=13). Certainty of evidence was mixed. Reviews mapped onto nine of the 17 clinical categories identified by the PSP.

conclusionThis review summarises the available high-quality evidence in burns care and identifies evidence gaps, indicating that many important clinical questions remain unanswered. There is a discrepancy between the treatments investigated in high-quality research and the clinical areas considered as most important to stakeholders. These findings provide direction for future research to improve global burns care.

Indexed as

BurnsEvidence-Based MedicineEvidence GapsHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicReproducibility of ResultsINTENSIVE & CRITICAL CARESURGERYSystematic Review

Identifiers

PMID40562552
PMCPMC12198850

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.