Cochrane · systematic review · CD012826
Hydrosurgical debridement versus conventional surgical debridement for acute partial‐thickness burns
Wormald, JCR, Wade, RG, Dunne, JA, 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
2
current version
GRADE rated
2
No studies
0
Included studies
NR
No studies 0 · 0%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 2 · 100%Low 0 · 0%Moderate 0 · 0%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
Hydrosurgery compared with conventional debridement for partial‐thickness burns prior to skin grafting
Population: acute partial‐thickness burns prior to skin grafting
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Time to complete healing after split‐thickness skin grafting (time to complete healing) Hydrosurgery vs conventional debridement | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 61 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness |
Postoperative infection (number of participants with post‐operative infection) Hydrosurgery vs conventional debridement | RR 1.33 [0.57, 3.11] | 1 study · 61 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness |