Huang 2004.

Methods	Parallell, RCT in four centres throughout China. Method of randomisation, allocation concealment and blinding of participants and investigators (including outcome assessors) not reported.
Participants	98 participants (male 79; female 19) aged 18 to 65 years with 166 residual burn wounds (mean %TBSA: 54). Average time since burn was 36 days. Exclusion criteria included serious complications of the heart, liver, kidney or blood system; serious infection; shock; pregnancy or lactation; allergy to sliver ions; diabetic ulceration with associated poor diabetic control; acute metabolic disorder.
Interventions	Nanocrystalline silver dressing (Acticoat) versus silver sulphadiazine (SD‐Ag 1%). Daily topical application of SD‐Ag 1% if the wound was severe (secretion; redness; swelling) or every three days if wound not severe
Outcomes	Time to complete wound healing Incidence of infection Adverse events
Notes
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	"The observing doctor hands out the dressing to every patient according to the time that they come to the hospital and to a randomized serial number". It is not clear how time of presentation influenced which treatment group participants were assigned to
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	High risk	There is a risk of selection bias: doctor treating the patients allocated dressing
Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) All outcomes	High risk	Open‐label treatment protocol The study describes assessment of the wound by two doctors, but it is not clear whether they were aware of treatment group assignment
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	High risk	13 participants were withdrawn from the study. The distribution of missing data was not described between the two groups. The analysis of healing time does not take account of the withdrawals; data from participants whose wounds had failed to heal are censored
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	Safety outcomes not reported. Efficacy outcomes were reported, but the authors report no difference in adverse events between groups: no numerical data presented.
Other bias	High risk	Patients (n = 98) randomised into groups but outcomes mostly measured effects on wounds (n = 166); unit of analysis errors. Not clear how the wounds distributed in the randomised patients.