Healy 1989.

Methods	Country where data collected: UK Parallel‐group RCT Unit of randomisation: participant Unit of analysis: participant Duration: Up to 14 days
Participants	Inclusion criteria: people with partial‐thickness burns covering < 10% TBSA Exclusion criteria: burns to face and hands Participants: 32 individuals with burns (no further information) Mean age (years): 2.6 (includes 0 adults) versus 20.6 (includes 5 adults) Male participants: NR Burn type: scald 25, flame 6, contact 1 (numbers approximately equal between groups) Burn degree: partial‐thickness Burn size (%TBSA): 1.8 ± 0.8 vs 2.3 ± 0.6 Burn location: NR
Interventions	Intervention arm 1: silver‐impregnated porcine xenograft (E‐Z Derm) N = 16 Intervention arm 2: petroleum gauze (Jelonet) N = 16 Cointerventions: NR
Outcomes	Primary outcome: wound healing Secondary outcome: adverse events (need for surgery)
Notes	Funding NR
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Quote: "Randomization to either the E‐Z Derm or Jelonet groups was by drawing a card from a sealed envelope." Comment: unclear how the randomisation process was designed and implemented so unclear if truly random
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Quote: "Randomization to either the E‐Z Derm or Jelonet groups was by drawing a card from a sealed envelope." Comment: unclear whether allocation was adequately concealed
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Quote: "All of the burns in both groups were assessed for the following: I. The need for surgical intervention to achieve healing............2. The time to spontaneous healing was noted in those patients not requiring surgical treatment. 3. Laboratory reports of significant growths of pathogenic microorganisms on culture of superficial wound swabs" Comment: no indication that assessment was carried out in a blinded manner
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Comment: no specific quote but all randomised participants appeared to be included in the analysis (based on tables)
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	Quote: "All of the burns in both groups were assessed for the following: I. The need for surgical intervention to achieve healing, indicated by clinical evidence of an increase in burn depth and lack of evidence of spontaneous healing by 10‐14 days. 2. The time to spontaneous healing was noted in those patients not requiring surgical treatment. 3. Laboratory reports of significant growths of pathogenic microorganisms on culture of superficial wound swabs." Comment: specified outcomes were properly reported.
Other bias	Unclear risk	Comment: no specific quote but no evidence of other sources of bias, but reporting insufficient to be certain