Chen 2006.

Methods	Country where data collected: China Parallel‐group RCT Unit of randomisation: participant Unit of analysis: participant Duration: NR (until healing)
Participants	Inclusion criteria: second‐degree burn wounds (superficial or deep); in hospital within 0.5‐12 h Exclusion criteria: NR Participants: 191 hospital patients Mean age (years): (35 ± 12) vs (30 ± 9) vs (32 ± 11) Male participants: 42/65 vs 36/63 vs 35/63 Burn type: NR Burn degree: superficial 31 vs 33 vs 32; deep 34 vs 30 vs 31 Burn size (%TBSA): superficial: 38.3 ± 18.1 vs 22.5 ± 10.2 vs 28.3 ± 8.6; deep 10.1 ± 2.2 vs 6.3 ± 3.2 vs 8.2 ± 1.6) Burn location:NR
Interventions	Intervention arm 1: silver nanoparticle dressing, changed every day (N = 65) Intervention arm 2: 1% SSD cream, changed every day (N = 63) Intervention arm 3: Vaseline gauze, changed every day (N = 63) Cointerventions: wounds cleaned with 0. 5% iodophor
Outcomes	Primary outcome: wound healing (mean time to wound healing)
Notes	Article in Chinese, extracted and assessed for risk of bias by one review author, discussed with a second review author Funding NR
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Comment: a random component in the sequence generation process was not reported in detail
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Comment: it did not state how randomisation sequence was allocated
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Comment: not mentioned
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Comment: result section and tables show that all participant data were included in analysis
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	Comment: protocol not obtained, based on paper only
Other bias	Unclear risk	Comment: The whole process of conducting this RCT was not clear