Abedini 2013.
| Methods | Country where data collected: Iran Parallel‐group RCT Unit of randomisation: participant Unit of analysis: participant Duration: not reported (until epithelialisation) |
|
| Participants | Inclusion criteria: partial‐thickness burn wounds < 24 h post‐injury with TBSA between 10%‐40% and aged 5‐60 years Exclusion criteria: chemical & electrical burns, multiple trauma and serious comorbidity Participants: 69 hospital patients Mean age (years): 27.9 vs 26.2 years Male participants: 67.6% vs 68.6% Burn type: fire 73.5% vs 74.3%; hot liquid 14.7% vs 20%; other 11.8% vs 5.7% Burn degree: NR Burn size (%TBSA): NR Burn location: NR |
|
| Interventions | Intervention arm 1: SSD cream, covered with cotton gauze, changed every other day. N = 34 Intervention arm 2: Silver nylon dressing (Agicoat) covered with cotton gauze, wetted regularly with sterile water, changed every 7 days. N = 35 Cointerventions: fentanyl analgesia as required |
|
| Outcomes | Primary outcome: wound healing rate (mean time to complete healing) Secondary outcome: resource use (total hospitalisation cost) |
|
| Notes | SD for wound healing and hospitalisation data extrapolated from graph Funding NR |
|
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Random sequence generation (selection bias) | Low risk | Quote: "sixty‐nine burn wounds patients were included and randomised (the random number generator was used) into two groups and given burn wound treatment with 1% AgSD or Agicoat®" Comment: unclear what random‐number generator was used but acceptable |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | Quote: "sixty‐nine burn wounds patients were included and randomised (the random number generator was used) into two groups and given burn wound treatment with 1% AgSD or Agicoat®" Comment: no information on allocation concealment |
| Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes | High risk | Quote: “both clinicians and patients or relatives were aware of the treatment procedure (open label design)” Comment: open label design and no mention of blinded outcome assessment |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes | Low risk | Quote “all patients remained in the study” Comment: no loss to follow‐up |
| Selective reporting (reporting bias) | High risk | No specific quote Comment: no report of VAS or resource use, which were listed as assessed outcomes. Also many outcomes had to be extrapolated from graphs |
| Other bias | Unclear risk | No evidence of other sources of bias but reporting insufficient to be certain |