Study	Reason for exclusion
Abdel‐Razek 2000	Inappropriate comparison. All patients received the same antibiotic (used the same treatment with selective gastrointestinal decontamination in two arms).
Afilalo 1992	Relevant data were not reported or available from the authors.
Ahuja 2009	None of the review outcomes was assessed.
Baghel 2009	Wounds were already infected before treatment. The study reported data on patients with positive cultures in the wound at the beginning of the study.
Branski 2008	Inappropriate comparison (used the same antibiotic in both arms).
Carneiro 2002	Wounds were already infected before treatment. The study reported data on patients with positive cultures in the wound at the beginning of the study.
Cason 1966	Quasi‐randomised.
De Gracia 2001	Inappropriate comparison (used the same antibiotic in both arms).
Deutsch 1990	Quasi‐randomised.
Donati 1994	Inappropriate intervention. All patients received the same antibiotic. An immunological treatment was the only one randomised.
Fang 1987	Inappropriate comparison (used the same antibiotic in both arms).
Grippaudo 2010	Even though the authors had mentioned in the abstract that the outcome of burn wound infection had been assessed, the study report did not include the data. We tried to contact the authors, but it was not possible to obtain data that could be used in our review
Huang 2006	Preliminary report of Huang 2007 (see below).
Huang 2007	Study assessed management of residual wounds postburn ‐ wounds were infected before treatment.
Hunter 1976	Quasi‐randomised.
Inman 1984	Inappropriate comparison (used the same antibiotic in both arms).
Li XL 2006	Study assessed management of residual burn wounds.
Lowbury 1968	Quasi‐randomised.
Malik 2010	Quasi‐randomised.
Manuskiatti 1999	Quasi‐randomised.
Mashhood 2006	None of the review outcomes was assessed.
Miller 1990	Inadequate comparison (used the same antibiotic in both arms).
Munster 1989	Quasi‐randomised.
Oen 2012	Inappropriate comparison (used the same antibiotic in both arms).
Ostlie 2012	Inappropriate intervention. All patients received the same antibiotic (SSD) at the beginning of the study. Quote: "After the initial debridement on admission, all patients were dressed with SSD, which was used for the first 2 days of daily debridement. After 2 days, patients were then randomized to continue daily debridement with either SSD or CO for up to10 days" (Page 1205).
Piel 1985	Even though the authors mentioned in the abstract that the outcome of burn wound infection had been assessed, the study report did not include the data. We tried to contact the authors, but it was not possible to obtain data that could be used in our review
Proctor 1971	Quasi‐randomised.
Ramos 2008	Wounds were already infected before treatment. The study reported data on patients with positive cultures in the wound at the beginning of the study.  Quote: "The antibiotic regimen was chosen in accordance with the antibiogram of the bacteria isolated from the surveillance wound cultures done once a week. The group of patients with less than 4 days of hospital admission did not have surveillance wound cultures and Cephalothin iv was prescribed" (Page 918).
Steer 1997	The analysis and reported data were not clear; authors reported 134 patients were randomised, but 86 patients who had been re‐intervened or who had undergone change of dressing were included in several analyses. The trial was excluded because of lack of independent information for those patients receiving antibiotic prophylaxis as the first intention treatment. We tried unsuccessfully to contact the study authors to obtain data on these results.
Subrahmanyam 1991	The wounds were already infected before treatment.
Ugburo 2004	The study did not provide information that could be used for our review.
Varas 2005	None of the review outcomes was assessed.
Waffle 1988	Quasi‐randomised.