Muangman 2006.

Methods	Country where data collected: Thailand Parallel‐group RCT Unit of randomisation: participant Unit of analysis: participant Duration: NR
Participants	Inclusion criteria: partial‐thickness burns < 25% TBSA Exclusion criteria: NR Participants: 50 people attending burns unit Mean age (years): 38 ± 25 vs 26 ± 27 Male participants: NR Burn type: flame 14 vs 12; scald 9 vs 12; electrical 1 vs 1; chemical 1 vs 0 Burn degree: NR Burn size (%TBSA): 15 ± 7 vs 15 ± 5 Burn location: NR
Interventions	Intervention arm 1: silver‐coated dressing moistened with sterile water (Acticoat), covered with dry dressing. Inner gauze moistened twice daily and silver dressing changed every 3 days Intervention arm 2: SSD and dry gauze dressing changed twice daily Cointerventions: 2 tabs of acetaminophen (paracetamol) (500 mg/tab) before dressing changes
Outcomes	Primary outcome: wound infection Secondary outcome: pain
Notes	Funding NR
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Quote: “Fifty patients were identified and randomized into 2 groups” Comment: no further information on method of randomisation
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Quote: “Fifty patients were identified and randomized into 2 groups” Comment: no further information to indicate concealment of allocation
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Quote: “A swab of wounds was sent for routine culture and sensitivity twice a week. Wounds were observed daily by an experienced burn surgeon for signs of infection such as erythema, induration, purulent discharge and malodor. Swabs were processed by the laboratory and returned results of 1+, 2+, or 3+ bacterial growth, corresponding to light, medium, or heavy growth on the culture plate ” 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	Unclear risk	Quote: “Fifty patients were identified and randomized into 2 groups” Comment: no direct quotes on any withdrawals or whether outcome data was used for all 50 patients
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	High risk	Quote: “Patients were also reviewed for documentation of efficacy of treatment including day of burn wound closure, pain scores, type of cultured organisms, wound colonization and infection, surgical procedures and mortality between both groups” Comment: no information on day of wound burn closure
Other bias	Unclear risk	Comment: no direct quotes but no evidence of additional sources of bias, but reporting insufficient to be certain