Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Tratamiento tópico para las quemaduras faciales

Esta versión no es la más reciente

Información

DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD008058.pub2Copiar DOI
Base de datos:
  1. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Versión publicada:
  1. 31 enero 2013see what's new
Tipo:
  1. Intervention
Etapa:
  1. Review
Grupo Editorial Cochrane:
  1. Grupo Cochrane de Heridas

Copyright:
  1. Copyright © 2013 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Cifras del artículo

Altmetric:

Citado por:

Citado 0 veces por enlace Crossref Cited-by

Contraer

Autores

  • Cornelis J Hoogewerf

    Burn Centre, Maasstad Hospital, Association of Dutch Burn Centres, Rotterdam, Netherlands

  • Margriet E Van Baar

    Correspondencia a: Burn Centre, Maasstad Hospital, Association of Dutch Burn Centres, Rotterdam, Netherlands

    [email protected]

  • M Jenda Hop

    Burn Centre, Maasstad Hospital, Association of Dutch Burn Centres, Rotterdam, Netherlands

  • Marianne K Nieuwenhuis

    Burn Centre, Martini Hospital, Association of Dutch Burn Centres, Groningen, Netherlands

  • Irma MMH Oen

    Burn Centre, Maasstad Hospital, Association of Dutch Burn Centres, Rotterdam, Netherlands

  • Esther Middelkoop

    Burn Centre, Red Cross Hospital, Association of Dutch Burn Centres, Beverwijk, Netherlands

Contributions of authors

Cornelis J. Hoogewerf coordinated the review, extracted and interpreted data, checked the quality of data extraction, undertook quality assessment, performed and checked quality of statistical analysis, completed the first draft of the review, edited the review, made an intellectual contribution, approved final review prior to submission, and wrote to authors/experts/companies.
Magriet E. Van Baar conceived, designed and coordinated the review, checked quality of data extraction, undertook quality assessment, interpreted data, checked quality of statistical analysis, completed first draft of the review, edited the review, made an intellectual contribution,  approved final review prior to submission, advised, secured funding, performed previous work that was the foundation for the current review, and is guarantor for the review.
Jenda M. Hop extracted data, checked quality of data extraction, undertook quality assessment, interpreted data, completed first draft of the review, performed part of the writing or editing, made an intellectual contribution, approved final review prior to submission and advised on the review.
Irma MMH Oen conceived and designed the review, interpreted data, completed the first draft of the review, performed part of the writing or editing, made an intellectual contribution, approved final review prior to submission, advised on the review and performed previous work that was the foundation of the current review.
Ester Middelkoop conceived and designed the review, interpreted data, completed first draft of the review, edited the review, made an intellectual contribution, approved final review prior to submission, advised on the review, secured funding and performed previous work that was the foundation of the current review.
Marianne K. Nieuwenhuis conceived and designed the review, interpreted data, checked quality of statistical analysis, completed first draft, performed part of the writing or editing, made an intellectual contribution, approved final review prior to submission, advised, and performed previous work that was the foundation of the review.

Contributions of editorial base:

Nicky Cullum: edited the protocol; advised on methodology, interpretation and protocol content, approved the final protocol and review prior to submission.
Sally Bell‐Syer: coordinated the editorial process, advised on methodology, interpretation and content, edited the protocol and review.
Ruth Foxlee: designed the search strategy, ran the searches and edited the search methods section.

Sources of support

Internal sources

  • The Association of Dutch Burn Centres, Netherlands.

External sources

  • NIHR/Department of Health (England), (Cochrane Wounds Group), UK.

Declarations of interest

Magriet van Baar, Irma Oen, Esther Middelkoop and Marianne Nieuwenhuis were involved in a trial (Oen 2012) which has been added to the Characteristics of studies awaiting classification and may be eligible for inclusion in future updates of this review.
No other conflicts of interest are declared.

Acknowledgements

The review authors would like to thank Johannes van der Wouden for his advice on methodology and the people who refereed the protocol and/or review: Wounds Group Editors Andrew Jull, Liz McInnes, Dirk Ubbink, Methodologist: Lois Orton, Statistician: Gill Worthy and Peer referees: Heather Cleland, Mary Mondozzi and Jane Nadel for their comments. Furthermore, we would like to thank Mingming Zhang for assessing two Chinese articles and Elizabeth Royle for copy editing the review.

Version history

Published

Title

Stage

Authors

Version

2020 Jul 29

Topical treatment for facial burns

Review

Cornelis J Hoogewerf, M Jenda Hop, Marianne K Nieuwenhuis, Irma MMH Oen, Esther Middelkoop, Margriet E Van Baar

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD008058.pub3

2013 Jan 31

Topical treatment for facial burns

Review

Cornelis J Hoogewerf, Margriet E Van Baar, M Jenda Hop, Marianne K Nieuwenhuis, Irma MMH Oen, Esther Middelkoop

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD008058.pub2

2009 Oct 07

Topical treatment for facial burns

Protocol

Margriet E Van Baar, Irma MMH Oen, Esther Middelkoop, Marianne K Nieuwenhuis

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD008058

Differences between protocol and review

There are four significant differences between protocol and review. Firstly, two authors were added to the review (CH and JH). Secondly, the electronic search strategy was revised. We expanded the search string and added an extra database (i.e. Ovid MEDLINE ‐ In‐Process). Another database changed platform from Ovid CINAHL to EBSCO CINAHL. Thirdly, we changed one question on our data extraction sheet. The question concerning sponsorship was changed from, "Was the trial sponsored by a manufacturer who potentially had an interest in the results?" to, "Was the trial guarded from sponsoring by a manufacturer who potentially had an interest in the results?". In the former question, an affirmative answer (yes) would have a negative meaning (sponsorship). This flaw was detected in a pilot study performed by two review authors (CH and JH), and the question was changed in the latter in order to give an affirmative answer a positive meaning (guarded from sponsorship). Finally, we could not perform all analyses described in the protocol. It was not possible to analyse time to wound healing as survival outcome due to insufficient data. Furthermore, none of the studies assessed the same outcome with the same definition (e.g. 90% or 95% re‐epithelialisation for complete wound healing), so no standardised mean differences were used. For the same reason, no meta‐analyses or associated analyses were performed.

PICO

Population
Intervention
Comparison
Outcome

El uso y la enseñanza del modelo PICO están muy extendidos en el ámbito de la atención sanitaria basada en la evidencia para formular preguntas y estrategias de búsqueda y para caracterizar estudios o metanálisis clínicos. PICO son las siglas en inglés de cuatro posibles componentes de una pregunta de investigación: paciente, población o problema; intervención; comparación; desenlace (outcome).

Para saber más sobre el uso del modelo PICO, puede consultar el Manual Cochrane.