Mashhood 2006.
| Methods | Country where data collected: Pakistan Parallel‐group RCT Unit of randomisation: participant Unit of analysis: participant Duration: 6 weeks' treatment; follow‐up at 6 months |
|
| Participants | Inclusion criteria: superficial and partial‐thickness burns, TBSA < 15% Exclusion criteria: deep burns; any medical illness beginning before or after injury Participants: 50 surgical hospital outpatients Mean age (years): 27.4 Male participants: NR (both men and women were included) Burn type: NR Burn degree: NR Burn size (%TBSA): NR Burn location: NR |
|
| Interventions | Intervention arm 1: pure honey applied once daily after wound cleansing with normal saline. N = 25 Intervention arm 2: 1% SSD cream once daily. N = 25 Cointerventions: wound cleansing with normal saline; sterile gauze dressings |
|
| Outcomes | Primary outcome: wound healing Secondary outcome: pain Secondary outcome: costs Secondary outcome: adverse events |
|
| Notes | Funding NR | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Random sequence generation (selection bias) | Unclear risk | Quote: "... 50 patients were selected for the study. They were randomly assigned to two groups" Comment: no information on how the randomisation sequence was generated |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | Quote: "... 50 patients were selected for the study. They were randomly assigned to two groups" Comment: no information on whether the allocations to treatment were adequately concealed |
| Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes | High risk | Quote: "At the time of change of dressing details regarding the condition of the wound such as signs of wound infection, condition of surrounding unburned tissues, discharge, smell, necrotic tissue and state of epithelialization was noted. Swabs for bacterial density and cultures were also obtained regularly. Subjective factors such as pain and local irritation were recorded regularly. Allergies or other side effects were noted in both groups." Comment: appears that blinded assessment could not have occurred as observations were undertaken when dressings were changed |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes | Low risk | Quote: " In group I treated with honey, 52% (n=13) of the patients had all the burns healed after 2 weeks and 100% (n=25) got cured after 4 weeks. In group II treated with 1% silver sulfadiazine, 20% (n=5) of the patients had their burns healed after 2 weeks, 60% (n=15) after 4 weeks and 100% (n=25) were cured by the end of 6 weeks of the treatment." Comment: results reported for all 50 randomised participants |
| Selective reporting (reporting bias) | Low risk | Quote: "The effectiveness of the two modalities of treatment was judged on the basis of three criteria: 1. Wound healing. 2. Pain relief. 3. Time taken for the wound to get sterile." Comment: all 3 prespecified outcomes were fully reported |
| Other bias | Unclear risk | Comment: no specific quote but no evidence of other sources of bias, but reporting insufficient to be certain |