Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

6 questions · 6 findings · 2 reviews

No studies found 3 · 50%GRADE not reported 0 · 0%Very low 2 · 33.3%Low 1 · 16.7%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%

Adverse events · people with burns

Silver‐based antiseptics showed no clear difference in adverse events compared with topical antibiotics (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Antiseptics for burns 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 0.86 [0.63, 1.18]
6 studies · 440 participants
Low

Severe adverse events leading to withdrawal of treatment · bacterial folliculitis and boils (furuncles and carbuncles)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Interventions for bacterial folliculitis and boils (furuncles and carbuncles) 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
Studies not reported
No studies found

Minor adverse events not leading to withdrawal of treatment · bacterial folliculitis and boils (furuncles and carbuncles)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Interventions for bacterial folliculitis and boils (furuncles and carbuncles) 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
Studies not reported
No studies found

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

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

Adverse events: honey versus SSD · people with burns

It is very uncertain whether honey changes adverse events: honey versus SSD compared with topical antibiotics (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Antiseptics for burns 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 0.2 [0.01, 3.97]
3 studies · 250 participants
Very low