Summary of findings 3. Aloe vera versus topical antibiotics.
| Aloe Vera versus topical antibiotics | ||||||
|
Patient or population: people with burns Intervention: Aloe Vera Comparison: topical antibiotics (SSD or framycetin) Setting: hospitals and burn clinics | ||||||
| Outcomes | Anticipated absolute effects* (95% CI) | Relative effect (95% CI) | № of participants (studies) | Certainty of the evidence (GRADE) | Comments | |
| Risk with topical antibiotics | Risk with Aloe Vera | |||||
| Wound healing (number of healing events): Aloe Vera versus SSD | 389 per 1000 | 548 per 1000 (272 to 1000) | RR 1.41 (0.70 to 2.85) | 38 (1 RCT) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ Low1 | It is unclear whether Aloe Vera may alter the number of healing events compared with SSD; confidence intervals are wide, spanning both benefits and harms so clear differences between treatments are not apparent |
| Risk difference: 159 more burns healed per 1000 with Aloe Vera than with SSD (117 fewer to 719 more) | ||||||
| Wound healing (mean time to healing): Aloe Vera versus SSD or framycetin | The mean time to wound healing was 21.25 days | The mean time to wound healing was 7.79 days shorter (17.96 shorter to 2.38 longer) | MD ‐7.79 (‐17.96 to 2.38) | 210 (3 RCTs) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ Very low2 | It is uncertain whether there is a difference in mean time to healing between Aloe Vera and SSD or framycetin. No data were contributed by the trial using framycetin |
| Infection: Aloe Vera versus SSD | 36 per 1000 | 34 per 1000 (9 to 121) | RR 0.93 (0.26 to 3.34) | 221 (3 RCTs) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ Very low3 | It is uncertain whether there is a difference in infection incidence between Aloe Vera and SSD |
| Risk difference: 3 fewer infections per 1000 with Aloe Vera than with SSD (27 fewer to 85 more) | ||||||
| Adverse events | No trial reported evaluable adverse event data for this comparison | |||||
| *The risk in the intervention group (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI). CI: Confidence interval; MD: mean difference; RR: Risk ratio; SSD: silver sulfadiazine | ||||||
| GRADE Working Group grades of evidence High: it is very likely that the effect will be close to what was found in the research. Moderate: it is likely that the effect will be close to what was found in the research, but there is a possibility that it will be substantially different. Low: it is likely that the effect will be substantially different from what was found in the research, but the research provides an indication of what might be expected. Very low: the anticipated effect is very uncertain and the research does not provide a reliable indication of what might be expected. | ||||||
1Downgraded twice for very serious imprecision. 2Downgraded once for risk of detection bias in a trial accounting for 47% of the analysis weight; once for inconsistency (I2 = 94%) and twice for imprecision. A post‐hoc sensitivity analysis excluding the trial with the intra‐individual design did not materially affect the result of the analysis. 3Downgraded once for risk of detection bias in a trial accounting for 84% of the analysis weight, and twice for imprecision. A post‐hoc sensitivity analysis excluding the trial with the intra‐individual design did not materially affect the result of the analysis.