Opasanon 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, less than 24 h post‐burn injury, TBSA < 15% Exclusion criteria: pregnancy, immunocompromised patients and hypersensitivity to treatments used Participants: 65 Mean age (years): 42.31 ± 23.49 vs 31.03 ± 19.76 Male participants: 15 vs 21 Burn type: flame 8 (23%) vs 18 (60%)/dcald 27 (77%) vs 10 (33%)/other (chemical, contact burn 0 (0%) vs 2 (7%) Burn degree: NR Burn size (%TBSA): 2.77 ± 0.41 vs 7.93 ± 1.8 Burn location: upper limb 31% vs 53%/lower limb 46% vs 33%/hand 11% vs 3%/other 12% vs 11% |
|
| Interventions | Intervention arm 1: 1% SSD (1% AgSD) covered with dry gauze dressing changed every day until complete wound closure. N = 35 Intervention arm 2: Alginate silver dressing (Askina Calgitrol Ag) changed every 5 days until complete wound closure. N = 30 Cointerventions: none reported |
|
| Outcomes | Primary outcome: wound healing Secondary outcome: pain |
|
| Notes | Funding NR | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Random sequence generation (selection bias) | Unclear risk | Quote: “Sixty‐five patients were identified and randomised into two groups” Comment: no further information on method of randomisation |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | Quote: “Sixty‐five patients were identified and randomised into two groups” Comment: no further information to indicate concealment of allocation |
| Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes | Unclear risk | Quote: “clinical assessment was evaluated by two experienced burn surgeons” Comment: no information on whether outcome assessors were blinded as to allocation of treatment |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes | Low risk | Quote: “Sixty‐five patients were identified and randomised into two groups” Comment: no withdrawals reported and Table 10 suggested that all participants were accounted for |
| Selective reporting (reporting bias) | Low risk | Quote: “pain scores, number of wound dressing change, nursing time and time of burn wound healing” Comment: all stated outcomes of interest were reported |
| Other bias | Low risk | Comment: no direct quotes but no evidence of additional sources of bias but reporting insufficient to be certain |