Cochrane · systematic review · CD008058
Topical treatment for facial burns
Hoogewerf, CJ, Hop, MJ, Nieuwenhuis, MK, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2020 · Cochrane Library
WoundsAMSTAR 2: not assessed
SoF tableOnly the outcomes this review put in its Summary of Findings table are listed (the Cochrane Handbook caps them at about seven per comparison). Its other analyses are not shown here.
Questions
21
current version
GRADE rated
11
No studies
9
Included studies
NR
No studies 9 · 42.9%Ungraded 1 · 4.8%Very low 4 · 19%Low 6 · 28.6%Moderate 1 · 4.8%High 0 · 0%
Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.
Questions and results
Topical antimicrobial agent compared with topical non‐antimicrobial agent for facial burns
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Outcomes ( Topical antimicrobial agent vs topical non‐antimicrobial agent | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Time to complete wound healing (time to event data) (6 months) Topical antimicrobial agent vs topical non‐antimicrobial agent | no estimate extracted | 39 participants | Moderate Downgraded: imprecision |
Time to complete wound healing (days) (until wound healing) Topical antimicrobial agent vs topical non‐antimicrobial agent | no estimate extracted | 60 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Proportion of wounds completely healed within 10 days (10 days) Topical antimicrobial agent vs topical non‐antimicrobial agent | RR 0.94 [0.68, 1.29] | 39 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Change in wound surface area over time or partial healing – not measured Topical antimicrobial agent vs topical non‐antimicrobial agent | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Infection (unclear Topical antimicrobial agent vs topical non‐antimicrobial agent | RR 0.38 [0.12, 1.21] | 40 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Topical antimicrobial compared with alternative antimicrobial agent for facial burns
Population: people with facial burns
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Outcomes ( Topical antimicrobial vs alternative antimicrobial agent | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Time to complete wound healing Topical antimicrobial vs alternative antimicrobial agent | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Proportion of wounds completely healed Topical antimicrobial vs alternative antimicrobial agent | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Change in wound surface area over time or partial healing (> 95%) (12 months) Topical antimicrobial vs alternative antimicrobial agent | no estimate extracted | 142 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Infection (until wound healing) Topical antimicrobial vs alternative antimicrobial agent | RR 0.73 [0.46, 1.17] | 15 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Skin substitute compared with topical antimicrobial agent for facial burns
Population: people with facial burns
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Outcomes ( Skin substitute vs topical antimicrobial agent | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Time to complete wound healing Skin substitute vs topical antimicrobial agent | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Proportion of wounds completely healed Skin substitute vs topical antimicrobial agent | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Change in wound surface area over time or partial wound healing (> 90%) (until wound healing) Skin substitute vs topical antimicrobial agent | no estimate extracted | 34 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Infection (until wound healing and unclear (2x)) Skin substitute vs topical antimicrobial agent | no estimate extracted | 56 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Miscellaneous treatment compared with miscellaneous treatment for facial burns
Population: people with facial burns
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Outcomes ( Miscellaneous treatment vs miscellaneous treatment | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Time to complete wound healing (until wound healing) Miscellaneous treatment vs miscellaneous treatment | no estimate extracted | 40 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Proportion of wounds completely healed in 14 days (14 days) Miscellaneous treatment vs miscellaneous treatment | RR 4.77 [1.87, 12.15] | 43 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Change in wound surface area over time or partial wound healing Miscellaneous treatment vs miscellaneous treatment | no estimate extracted | 2011 participants | Ungraded |
Infection ( Miscellaneous treatment vs miscellaneous treatment | no estimate extracted | 43 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |