Phipps 1988.
| Methods | Country where data collected: UK Parallel group RCT Unit of randomisation: participant Unit of analysis: participant Duration: NR |
|
| Participants | Inclusion criteria: burns less than 5% TBSA (averaging under 1%) suitable for outpatient treatment Exclusion criteria: those needing inpatient treatment, facial burns, hand burns managed in bags and those whose treatment was to be continued elsewhere Participants: 196 outpatients Mean age (years): < 5 years: 21 vs 24; 5‐14 years: 7 vs 9; > 14 years: 64 vs 71 Male participants: 49 vs 64 Burn type: NR Burn degree: NR Burn size (%TBSA): < 1% Burn location: NR |
|
| Interventions | Intervention arm 1: hydrocolloid material covered with cotton gauze overlaid with cotton wool and secured with crepe bandage or adhesive tape. Dressing inspected on 3rd or 4th day and then changed weekly unless dressing contaminated or adverse symptoms developed Intervention arm 2: chlorhexidine‐impregnated tulle‐gras dressing covered with cotton gauze overlaid with cotton wool and secured with crepe bandage or adhesive tape. Dressing inspected on 3rd or 4th day and then changed weekly unless dressing contaminated or adverse symptoms developed Cointerventions: NR |
|
| 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 randomly to one of two treatment groups” Comment: no further information on method of randomisation |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | Quote: “patients were allocated randomly to one of two treatment groups” Comment: no further information to indicate concealment of allocation |
| Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes | Unclear risk | Quote "at each inspection of the wound, its progress towards healing was noted" Comment: no indication that outcome assessment was blinded but unclear |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes | High risk | Quote: “119 of the 196 patients were followed to complete healing” Comment: details were given on why the excluded participants' data were not included |
| Selective reporting (reporting bias) | Low risk | Comment: no direct quotes but 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 |