Maghsoudi 2011.
| Methods | Country where data collected: Iran Parallel‐group RCT Unit of randomisation: participant Unit of analysis: participant Duration: 3 months' follow‐up |
|
| Participants | Inclusion criteria: partial‐thickness (superficial thermal) burn, < 40% TBSA Exclusion criteria: NR Participants: 100 hospital patients Mean age (years): 25.2 vs 26.4 Male participants: 23 vs 25 Burn type: flame 43 vs 39; scald 7 vs 11 Burn degree: NR Burn size (%TBSA): 14.5 (10‐40) vs 15.6 (10.5‐40) Burn location: NR |
|
| Interventions | Intervention arm 1: honey applied in quantity 16 mL‐30 mL on alternate days after saline wash. Wound covered with dry gauze Intervention arm 2: mafenide acetate‐impregnated gauze over wound after saline wash. Changed daily. Cointerventions: wound cleansing with saline; 1% lidocaine before biopsy |
|
| Outcomes | Primary outcome: wound healing Primary outcome: infection |
|
| Notes | Funding: NR | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Random sequence generation (selection bias) | Unclear risk | Quote: “patients were allocated at random” Comment: no further information on method of randomisation |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | Quote: “patients were allocated at random” Comment: no further information to indicate concealment of allocation |
| Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes | Unclear risk | Quote: "The wounds were inspected every two days until healing…..the amount of discharge, any foul smell, the type of granulation tissue and signs of healing, and the time taken for healing were noted. The wounds were observed for evidence of infection, excessive exudate, or leakage until healing…" Comment: no information on whether outcome assessors were blinded as to allocation; balance of probabilities based on quote is that assessment was unblinded |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes | Low risk | Quote: “two groups of 50 randomly allocated patients” Comment: no withdrawals reported and Tables 2 and 3 suggest that all participants were accounted for |
| Selective reporting (reporting bias) | Low risk | Quote: “a clinical and histochemical comparison of burns treated with honey dressing and with mafenide acetate in order to assess their wound healing rates” Comment: all stated outcomes of interest were reported |
| Other bias | Unclear risk | Comment: no direct quotes but no evidence of additional sources of bias, but reporting insufficient to be certain |