Muangman 2010.

Methods	Single‐centre parallel RCT in Thailand.
Participants	70 participants (male 32; female 38) with a mean age of 38 years presenting within 24 hours prior to study enrolment with superficial second degree burn < 15% TBS (mean %TBSA 2.8). Exclusion criteria included concomitant trauma; chemical/electrical burns; inhalation injuries; facial burns; underlying conditions that could interfere with treatment; restricted availability for out‐patient follow‐up; recent antibiotic use; pregnancy; wound dressing allergy
Interventions	Aquacel‐Ag hydrofibre dressing applied once versus daily application of 1% silver sulphadiazine.
Outcomes	Time to wound healing Pain Total dressing cost Total hospital cost Pain medication Transport cost
Notes
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Quote: "Patients were randomised by computer..." Comment: probably done
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Inadequate information reported to confirm concealment of allocation
Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) All outcomes	High risk	Different care protocols so blinding of patients and investigators not feasible. Not clear whether assessor blinded: assumed to be at risk of detection bias.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	All participants followed‐up until wound had healed. Assumed that no losses to follow‐up occurred.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	The outcomes described in the material and methods section were fully reported Expectation of wound infection would be low so reporting this outcome might not be relevant for this population
Other bias	Low risk	None detected