International wound journal
-
Review Comparative Study
Comparing the reported burn conditions for different severity burns in porcine models: a systematic review.
There are many porcine burn models that create burns using different materials (e.g. metal, water) and different burn conditions (e.g. temperature and duration of exposure). This review aims to determine whether a pooled analysis of these studies can provide insight into the burn materials and conditions required to create burns of a specific severity. A systematic review of 42 porcine burn studies describing the depth of burn injury with histological evaluation is presented. ⋯ Conditions causing deep dermal scald burns compared to contact burns of equivalent severity were disparate, with lower temperatures and shorter durations reported for scald burns (83°C for 14 seconds) compared to contact burns (111°C for 23 seconds). A valuable archive of the different mechanisms and materials used for porcine burn models is presented to aid design and optimisation of future models. Significantly, this review demonstrates the effect of the mechanism of injury on burn severity and that caution is recommended when burn conditions established by porcine contact burn models are used by regulators to guide scald burn prevention strategies.
-
Review
Poor methodological quality and reporting standards of systematic reviews in burn care management.
The methodological and reporting quality of burn-specific systematic reviews has not been established. The aim of this study was to evaluate the methodological quality of systematic reviews in burn care management. Computerised searches were performed in Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE and The Cochrane Library through to February 2016 for systematic reviews relevant to burn care using medical subject and free-text terms such as 'burn', 'systematic review' or 'meta-analysis'. ⋯ Of the 27 items listed for PRISMA, 13 items reporting on introduction, methods, results and the discussion were addressed in less than 50% of systematic reviews. Multivariable analyses showed that systematic reviews associated with higher methodological or reporting quality incorporated a meta-analysis (AMSTAR regression coefficient 2.1; 95% CI: 1.1, 3.1; PRISMA regression coefficient 6·3; 95% CI: 3·8, 8·7) were published in the Cochrane library (AMSTAR regression coefficient 2·9; 95% CI: 1·6, 4·2; PRISMA regression coefficient 6·1; 95% CI: 3·1, 9·2) and included a randomised control trial (AMSTAR regression coefficient 1·4; 95%CI: 0·4, 2·4; PRISMA regression coefficient 3·4; 95% CI: 0·9, 5·8). The methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews in burn care requires further improvement with stricter adherence by authors to the PRISMA checklist and AMSTAR tool.
-
Review
Poor methodological quality and reporting standards of systematic reviews in burn care management.
The methodological and reporting quality of burn-specific systematic reviews has not been established. The aim of this study was to evaluate the methodological quality of systematic reviews in burn care management. Computerised searches were performed in Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE and The Cochrane Library through to February 2016 for systematic reviews relevant to burn care using medical subject and free-text terms such as 'burn', 'systematic review' or 'meta-analysis'. ⋯ Of the 27 items listed for PRISMA, 13 items reporting on introduction, methods, results and the discussion were addressed in less than 50% of systematic reviews. Multivariable analyses showed that systematic reviews associated with higher methodological or reporting quality incorporated a meta-analysis (AMSTAR regression coefficient 2.1; 95% CI: 1.1, 3.1; PRISMA regression coefficient 6·3; 95% CI: 3·8, 8·7) were published in the Cochrane library (AMSTAR regression coefficient 2·9; 95% CI: 1·6, 4·2; PRISMA regression coefficient 6·1; 95% CI: 3·1, 9·2) and included a randomised control trial (AMSTAR regression coefficient 1·4; 95%CI: 0·4, 2·4; PRISMA regression coefficient 3·4; 95% CI: 0·9, 5·8). The methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews in burn care requires further improvement with stricter adherence by authors to the PRISMA checklist and AMSTAR tool.
-
Review Meta Analysis
Efficacy and safety of triamcinolone acetonide alone and in combination with 5-fluorouracil for treating hypertrophic scars and keloids: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Pathological scars, such as keloids and hypertrophic scars, readily cause physical and psychological problems. Combination 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) with triamcinolone acetonide (TAC) is presumed to enhance the treatment of pathological scars, although supportive evidence is lacking. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of TAC alone and in combination with 5-FU for the treatment of hypertrophic scars and keloids. ⋯ The erythema score of the experimental group after treatment was superior (MD = -0·20, 95% CI = -0·34-0·06, P = 0·004). The heterogeneity test showed no heterogeneity among the studies (P > 0·1, I2 = 0%). TAC combined with 5-FU is more suitable for the treatment and prevention of hypertrophic scars and keloids, with greater improvement in scar height and patient satisfaction as well as fewer side effects.
-
Review Meta Analysis
Efficacy and safety of triamcinolone acetonide alone and in combination with 5-fluorouracil for treating hypertrophic scars and keloids: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Pathological scars, such as keloids and hypertrophic scars, readily cause physical and psychological problems. Combination 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) with triamcinolone acetonide (TAC) is presumed to enhance the treatment of pathological scars, although supportive evidence is lacking. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of TAC alone and in combination with 5-FU for the treatment of hypertrophic scars and keloids. ⋯ The erythema score of the experimental group after treatment was superior (MD = -0·20, 95% CI = -0·34-0·06, P = 0·004). The heterogeneity test showed no heterogeneity among the studies (P > 0·1, I2 = 0%). TAC combined with 5-FU is more suitable for the treatment and prevention of hypertrophic scars and keloids, with greater improvement in scar height and patient satisfaction as well as fewer side effects.