evidencegaps
Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

Refine by population, intervention, comparison or outcome
More filters
Evidence found and GRADE certainty

1,562 questions · 1,645 findings · 107 reviews · Wounds

Sort:Best matchNewestHighest certaintyDownload CSV
No studies found 651 · 39.6%GRADE not reported 84 · 5.1%Very low 554 · 33.7%Low 283 · 17.2%Moderate 64 · 3.9%High 9 · 0.5%

Iodine vs topical antibiotics

Infection · people with burns

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review
  • Antiseptics for burns 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
    no estimate extracted
    Studies not reported
    No studies found

Iodine vs topical antibiotics

Adverse events · people with burns

It is very uncertain whether iodine changes adverse events compared with topical antibiotics (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review
  • Antiseptics for burns 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
    RR 0.86 [0.35, 2.1]
    1 study · 40 participants
    Very low

Silver vs non‐antibacterial

Wound healing · people with burns

Silver showed no clear difference in wound healing (number of healing events): silver xenograft vs… compared with non‐antibacterial (low certainty).

2 findings from 1 review
  • Antiseptics for burns 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
    RR 1.13 [0.59, 2.16]
    1 study · 32 participants
    Low
  • Antiseptics for burns 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
    no estimate extracted
    2 studies · 204 participants
    Moderate

Silver‐based antiseptics vs topical antibiotics

Wound healing · people with burns

Silver‐based antiseptics showed no clear difference in wound healing (mean time to healing) compared with topical antibiotics (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review
  • Antiseptics for burns 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
    no estimate extracted
    10 studies · 1085 participants
    Low

Silver vs non‐antibacterial

Infection · people with burns

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review
  • Antiseptics for burns 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
    no estimate extracted
    Studies not reported
    No studies found

Silver vs non‐antibacterial

Adverse events · people with burns

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review
  • Antiseptics for burns 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
    no estimate extracted
    Studies not reported
    No studies found

Honey vs non‐antibacterial

Time to complete healing · people with burns

Honey probably leads to higher wound healing: time to complete healing (time‐to‐event data) compared with non‐antibacterial (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review
  • Antiseptics for burns 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
    HR 2.86 [1.6, 5.11]
    2 studies · 164 participants
    Moderate

Honey vs non‐antibacterial

Wound healing · people with burns

Honey showed no clear difference in wound healing (mean time to healing) compared with non‐antibacterial (high certainty).

1 finding from 1 review
  • Antiseptics for burns 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
    no estimate extracted
    4 studies · 1156 participants
    High

Honey vs non‐antibacterial

Infection (incident) · people with burns

It is very uncertain whether honey changes infection (incident) compared with non‐antibacterial (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review
  • Antiseptics for burns 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
    RR 0.47 [0.23, 0.98]
    1 study · 92 participants
    Very low

Honey vs non‐antibacterial

Infection (persistent) · people with burns

It is very uncertain whether honey changes infection (persistent) compared with non‐antibacterial (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review
  • Antiseptics for burns 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
    RR 0.15 [0.06, 0.4]
    2 studies · 147 participants
    Very low

Chlorhexidine vs non‐antibacterial

Time to complete healing · people with burns

Chlorhexidine showed no clear difference in wound healing: time to complete healing (time‐to‐event data):… compared with non‐antibacterial (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review
  • Antiseptics for burns 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
    HR 0.71 [0.39, 1.29]
    1 study · 51 participants
    Low

Chlorhexidine vs non‐antibacterial

Wound healing · people with burns

Chlorhexidine may leads to higher wound healing (mean time to healing): chlorhexidine versus… compared with non‐antibacterial (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review
  • Antiseptics for burns 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
    MD 4.08 [0.73, 7.43]
    1 study · 51 participants
    Low

Silver‐based antiseptics vs topical antibiotics

Number of wounds healed · people with burns

Silver‐based antiseptics showed no clear difference in wound healing (number of healing events) compared with topical antibiotics (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review
  • Antiseptics for burns 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
    RR 1.17 [1, 1.37]
    5 studies · 408 participants
    Low

Chlorhexidine vs non‐antibacterial

Infection: chlorhexidine versus no antimicrobial/no additional antimicrobial · people with burns

It is very uncertain whether chlorhexidine changes infection: chlorhexidine versus no antimicrobial/no additional… compared with non‐antibacterial (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review
  • Antiseptics for burns 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
    RR 1.11 [0.54, 2.27]
    2 studies · 172 participants
    Very low

Chlorhexidine vs non‐antibacterial

Adverse events: chlorhexidine versus hydrocolloid · people with burns

It is very uncertain whether chlorhexidine changes adverse events: chlorhexidine versus hydrocolloid compared with non‐antibacterial (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review
  • Antiseptics for burns 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
    RR 0.2 [0.02, 1.65]
    1 study · 98 participants
    Very low

Iodine vs non‐antibacterial

Wound healing · people with burns

Iodine may leads to lower wound healing (number of healing events): iodophor versus hydrogel compared with non‐antibacterial (low certainty).

3 findings from 1 review
  • Antiseptics for burns 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
    RR 0.17 [0.08, 0.34]
    1 study · 120 participants
    Low
  • Antiseptics for burns 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
    MD 5.38 [3.09, 7.67]
    1 study · 277 participants
    Very low
  • Antiseptics for burns 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
    no estimate extracted
    1 study · 55 participants
    Very low

Iodine vs non‐antibacterial

Infection: iodine gauze versus MEBO · people with burns

Iodine showed no clear difference in infection: iodine gauze versus MEBO compared with non‐antibacterial (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review
  • Antiseptics for burns 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
    RR 1.3 [0.47, 3.61]
    1 study · 211 participants
    Low

Iodine vs non‐antibacterial

Adverse effects: iodine gauze versus MEBO · people with burns

Iodine showed no clear difference in adverse effects: iodine gauze versus MEBO compared with non‐antibacterial (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review
  • Antiseptics for burns 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
    RR 0.71 [0.3, 1.69]
    1 study · 211 participants
    Low