-
International Wound Journal Apr 2024This study aims to evaluate the clinical effects of different blood derivatives on wound healing using network meta-analysis. PubMed, Embase, OVID, Web of Science,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
This study aims to evaluate the clinical effects of different blood derivatives on wound healing using network meta-analysis. PubMed, Embase, OVID, Web of Science, SCOPUS and Cochrane Central were searched to obtain studies about blood derivatives on wound healing until October 2023. R 4.2.0 and Stata 15.0 softwares were used for data analysis. Forty-four studies comprising 5164 patients were included. The results of network meta-analysis showed that the healing area from high to low was GF + ORCCB, ORCCB, GF, PRF, Unnas paste dressing, APG, PRP injection, PRP, PRP + thrombin gel, PPP, HPL, CT. The healing time from low to high was PRP + thrombin gel, GF, PRP, PC + K, PC, APG, PRF, CT, Silver sulfadiazine ointment. The number of patients cured from high to low was APG, PRP injection, PRP, Aurix, PRF, Leucopatch, HPL, Antimicrobial Ointment Dressing, CT, 60 μg/cm repifermin, 120 μg/cm repifermin, AFG, PPP. The order of analgesic effect from high to low was AFG, Aminogam gel, PRF, PRP, Oxidised oil, APG, GF, CT. The order of the number of wound infection cases from low to high is APG, 20 μg/cm repifermin, 60 μg/cm repifermin, PRP, LeucoPatch, CT, PPP, Antiseptic ointment dressing. Healing area: GF + ORCCB had the best effect; Healing time: PRP + thrombin gel took the shortest time. The number of cured patients and the reduction of wound infection: APG has the best effect. Analgesic effect: AFG has the best effect. More studies with large sample sizes are needed to confirm the above findings.
Topics: Humans; Network Meta-Analysis; Thrombin; Ointments; Fibroblast Growth Factor 10; Wound Healing; Treatment Outcome; Wound Infection; Analgesics; Platelet-Rich Plasma
PubMed: 38158884
DOI: 10.1111/iwj.14622 -
Journal of Clinical Medicine Mar 2024: Burns are a serious public health problem worldwide, causing high morbidity and mortality. This study aimed to compare two forms of treatment for partial skin burns... (Review)
Review
: Burns are a serious public health problem worldwide, causing high morbidity and mortality. This study aimed to compare two forms of treatment for partial skin burns and to determine whether one is superior to the other in terms of efficacy and benefits through a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. This article highlights the efficacy of tilapia skin in the treatment of burns. We performed a meta-analysis of 199 patients and highlighted the promising results that indicate the clinical relevance of this resource when we compared the cost of dressings with the daily need for dressing changes, healing potential, and reduction in pain level according to the VAS scale and reduced frequency of dressing changes. : A search of PubMed, Cochrane Central, and LILACS was performed to identify randomized controlled trials comparing tilapia skin and silver-based dressings for treating burns. Studies involving overlapping populations and animals were excluded. The outcomes of interest were complete re-epithelialization, decreased pain level, and dressing change. : Summarize the article's main findings. : Four randomized trials were included with a total of 199 patients with partial-thickness burns between the ages of 2 and 70 years. A total of 99 (49.74%) patients were treated with tilapia skin, and conventional treatment was used on 100 (50.25%) of the patients. Differences were found between the tilapia and silver-based treatments concerning re-epithelialization (MD -0.48; CI 95% -0.71 to -0.24; < 0.01; I2 = 0%), decreased pain level (MD -0.79; CI 95% -1.10 to -0.47; < 0.01; I2 = 0%), and dressing change outcome (MD -3.54; 95% CI -5.81 to -1.26; = 0.02; I2 = 97%).
PubMed: 38541868
DOI: 10.3390/jcm13061642