ArticleInternational journal of burns and trauma2026
A randomized open-label study comparing the safety and efficacy of a natural antimicrobial dressing with silver sulfadiazine in the management of second-degree burn wounds.
Article in International journal of burns and trauma, 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study evaluates the efficacy of VELVERT, a novel antimicrobial dressing, compared to the standard Silver Sulfadiazine dressing in treating second-degree burns.
methodConducted at a tertiary burn care center, 63 patients were enrolled and randomized into two groups: VELVERT (n = 31) and Silver Sulfadiazine (n = 30). The primary outcomes measured were wound closure percentage and time to complete healing within 24 days, while secondary outcomes included infection control, pain relief, and adverse events. The study was registered with CTRI with the registration number CTRI/2020/12/029698 (https://ctri.nic.in/Clinicaltrials/pmaindet2.php?EncHid=NDY5MDc=&Enc=&userName=).
resultAmong 61 patients who completed the study, 87% (27/31) in the VELVERT group achieved complete wound healing compared to 63% (19/30) in the Silver Sulfadiazine group. The BWAT score, assessing wound healing, showed a decline from 31.66 ± 3.15 to 15.55 ± 4.42 in the VELVERT group and from 31.55 ± 3.35 to 16.18 ± 5.37 in the Silver Sulfadiazine group (P = 0.176). Both treatments were well tolerated, but VELVERT exhibited superior wound healing outcomes.
conclusionThese findings suggest that VELVERT may serve as a more effective alternative for second-degree burn treatment, offering improved healing rates. Further research with larger sample sizes is recommended to validate its clinical benefits over standard treatments.
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.