Wyatt 1990.

Methods	RCT. Method of randomisation and allocation concealment not reported. Blinding at outcome assessment recorded.
Participants	50 patients with minor second‐degree burns who present to an emergency department and/or occupational medicine clinic. Burns which occurred more than 48 hours before presentation for treatment or burns to face, hands, feet or perineum, electrical and chemical burns and those participants with concomitant disease such as diabetes mellitus were excluded.
Interventions	Hydrocolloid dressing (DuoDerm, ConvaTec, Squibb) versus SSD (Silvadene, Marion Laboratories)
Outcomes	Time to complete wound healing Number of dressing changes Level of pain
Notes	Withdrawals:8/50 (16%) Loss to follow‐up: 8/50 (16%)
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Patients "randomly assigned" but no description of method
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Not reported
Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) All outcomes	High risk	Patients and investigators not blinded as the randomised treatments had different care protocols. One of the outcomes, impression of overall healing, was assessed blindly by one investigator.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	High risk	8/50 (16%) patients excluded, 4 because they were lost to follow‐up and 4 because of protocol violations. It is not reported whether the reasons for dropouts were related to group assignment.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	All prespecified outcomes reported
Other bias	Unclear risk	Dressing provided by medical equipment company

C: control 
 ED: emergency department 
 Gp: group 
 I: intervention 
 ITT: intention‐to‐treat 
 NA: not applicable 
 RCT: randomised controlled trial 
 SSD: silver sulphadiazine 
 %TBSA: percentage of total burn surface area