Muangman 2010.
| Methods | Country where data collected: Thailand Parallel‐group RCT Unit of randomisation: participant Unit of analysis: participant Duration: NR |
|
| Participants | Inclusion criteria: partial‐thickness burn (superficial second‐degree) within 24 h of enrolment and < 15% of TBSA Exclusion criteria: concomitant trauma, chemical and electrical burns, and serious comorbidity were excluded Participants: 70 people attending outpatient burns unit Mean age (years): 34.9 vs 42.3 years Male participants: 5 (42.9%) vs 17 (48.6%) Burn type: flame 8 vs 7/scalded 27 vs 28 Burn degree: 2nd‐degree Burn size (%TBSA): NR Burn location: NR |
|
| Interventions | Intervention arm 1: hydrofibre dressing coated with ionic silver (Aquacel Ag) with 1 cm overlap, covered with a layer of plain gauze, changed every 3 days. N = 35 Intervention arm 2: SSD and gauze dressing, changed daily. N = 35 Cointerventions: wound cleansing with saline, blisters removed |
|
| Outcomes | Primary outcome: wound healing Secondary outcome: pain Secondary outcome: resource use |
|
| Notes | Funding: Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Random sequence generation (selection bias) | Low risk | Quote: “Patients were randomized by computer and assigned into two groups according to the burn wound treatment” Comment: computer‐generated randomisation sequence |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | Quote: “Patients were randomized by computer and assigned into two groups according to the burn wound treatment” Comment: no further information to indicate concealment of allocation |
| Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes | Unclear risk | Quote “Dressings were evaluated …..on postburn day 1 and then every 3 days until the wound healed. At each evaluation after the dressing was removed, the burn wound was inspected for wound healing and change in depth and infection……Burn wounds were also observed daily by the experienced burn surgeon. After each burn dressing change in both groups, the performance characteristic photograph and questionnaire were recorded." 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: “Seventy patients were enrolled in the study and randomly assigned into two groups” Comment: no direct quotes on any withdrawals or whether outcome data was used for all 70 participants |
| Selective reporting (reporting bias) | Low risk | Quote: “The primary endpoint of this study was time‐to‐wound healing, defined as spelling [sic] of the wound. Secondary endpoints included pain assessment by patients’ pain scores during wound dressing…... Total dressing cost was divided into hospital charges including hospital fee, dressing cost and pain medication and transportation cost …for each hospital visit.” Comment: all stated outcomes of interest were reported |
| Other bias | Low risk | Comment: no direct quotes but no evidence of additional sources of bias with reasonable level of reporting |