Abstract
Burns are an important public health issue, related to 11 million cases annually around the world and up to 180 thousand direct or indirect deaths. Thus, it is vitally important to understand the effectiveness of the different products commercialized for the treatment of burn injuries.
Objectives To analyze the effectiveness of products used in the treatment of superficial-type partial-thickness burn injuries.
Methods This is a systematic review, using the PICO strategy, with a search period between 2004 and 2020, consulting the COCHRANE Library, Lilacs, Medline, PubMed and Scielo databases. The inclusion criteria were studies that used commercialized products for the treatment of superficial-type partial-thickness burn injuries in humans. To assess the quality and risk of bias of the studies, the Oxford scale and criteria from the Cochrane Guidelines were used.
Results 19 eligible studies were selected, most of the products were presented as an alternative to the traditional treatment that involves the use of the silver sulfadiazine product. The methodological quality of the studies allowed performing a meta-analysis of only 2 studies, evaluating the healing outcome, the low number of studies included for statistical analysis suggests that it is not possible to conclude which product is more effective.
Conclusions There is a limitation in the available studies that address the costs and outcomes of existing interventions for the treatment of burns. Future research should develop systematic, valid measures in order to obtain an analytically and statistically adequate result.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
N/A systematic review does not need an ethics committee
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
luana_n2{at}hotmail.com; guilhermeufg65{at}gmail.com; marinavinaud{at}gmail.com; erikacoutinholima{at}gmail.com; ruylinojr{at}gmail.com
Data Availability
All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.
