![]() ![]() greater than 90%) wound healing (comparison SSD versus cerium SSD: mean difference (MD) –7.10 days, 95% CI –16.43 to 2.23 1 study, 142 participants). ![]() For primary outcomes, there is low‐certainty evidence for time to partial (i.e. It is uncertain whether topical antimicrobial agents make any difference in effects as the evidence is low to very low‐certainty. Topical antimicrobial agents versus other topical antimicrobial agents Two studies assessed pain but it was incompletely reported. There is low‐certainty evidence for the secondary outcomes scar quality and patient satisfaction. No trials reported change in wound surface area over time or partial wound healing. We are uncertain whether there is a difference in wound infection (comparison topical antimicrobial agent (Aquacel‐Ag) and MEBO RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.12 to 1.21 1 study, 40 participants very low‐certainty evidence). Topical antimicrobial agents may make little or no difference to the proportion of wounds completely healed compared with topical non‐antimicrobial agents (comparison SSD and MEBO, risk ratio (RR) 0.94, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.29 1 study, 39 participants low‐certainty evidence). There is moderate‐certainty evidence that there is probably little or no difference between antimicrobial agents and non‐antimicrobial agents (SSD and MEBO) in time to complete wound healing (hazard ratio (HR) 0.84 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.78 to 1.85, 1 study, 39 participants). Topical antimicrobial agents versus topical non‐antimicrobial agents sequence generation and allocation concealment) lack of blinding of participants, providers and sometimes outcome assessors and imprecision resulting from few participants, low event rates or both, often in single studies. Topical agents included antimicrobial agents (silver sulphadiazine (SSD), Aquacel‐Ag, cerium‐sulphadiazine, gentamicin cream, mafenide acetate cream, bacitracin), non‐antimicrobial agents (Moist Exposed Burn Ointment (MEBO), saline‐soaked dressings, skin substitutes (including bioengineered skin substitute (TransCyte), allograft, and xenograft (porcine Xenoderm), and miscellaneous treatments (growth hormone therapy, recombinant human granulocyte‐macrophage colony‐stimulating factor hydrogel (rhGMCS)), enzymatic debridement, and cream with Helix Aspersa extract).Īlmost all the evidence included in this review was assessed as low or very low‐certainty, often because of high risk of bias due to unclear randomisation procedures (i.e. Most trials included adults admitted to specialised burn centres after recent burn injuries. In this first update, we included 12 RCTs, comprising 507 participants.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |