Voltafas Mebo Burn Fast Pain Relief Healing Cream Leaves No Marks 15 Grams

Product Information

Two review authors (CH and MvB) made systematic and independent assessments of the risk of bias of each trial, using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' criteria ( Higgins 2017). However, all evidence was from moderately to poorly reported trials with a high risk of bias, thereby limiting the strength of this evidence. lsolafing and protecting the wound bed from environmental factors but at the same time maintaining drainage and gaseous exchange. Six of 12 studies explicitly stated that the authors had no conflict of interest ( Ang 2000; Lehna 2017; Mabrouk 2012; Oen 2012; Tsoutsos 2009; Wang 2015), while the authors of other studies provided no information about sponsorship ( Demling 1999; Demling 2002; Desai 1991; Hindy 2009; Horch 2005; Jiaao 2011). Because we anticipated that primary studies would report and analyse secondary outcomes at different time points, we prespecified time points as either short‐term or long‐term.

Besides generating excessive oedema in burns, these systemic reactions can further compromise the healing of a burn wound, and so it is important to consider adequate local treatment, as well as systemic management of a burn, as this may influence the final outcome of the injury. In three of these five studies, the intervention was an explicitly mentioned brand, but it was not stated whether this application was sponsored or purchased ( Demling 1999; Demling 2002; Hindy 2009). The characteristics of these studies are described in the Characteristics of included studies table and are summarised below. PubMed-listed randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the efficacy of MEBO with placebo, standard care or other therapies in the treatment of partial thickness burns in adults and children were eligible for inclusion (November 2019).

Ideally 'time to wound healing' should be measured as a time‐to‐event outcome and reported in survival curves and expressed as hazard ratios. Despite their popularity and widespread use, silver‐based modalities are not without complications, including frequently observed delayed wound healing, which might be due to the retardation of sloughing in partial‐thickness burns. This type of study design provides the most reliable health evidence about whether different approaches to treatment or care can make a difference. Three studies reported blinding of outcome assessors ( Ang 2000; Lehna 2017; Tsoutsos 2009); four studies clearly did not undertake blinded outcome assessment ( Demling 1999; Demling 2002; Oen 2012; Wang 2015), and in five studies it was unclear whether the outcome assessor was blinded ( Desai 1991; Hindy 2009; Horch 2005; Jiaao 2011; Mabrouk 2012). Final assessment of risk of bias was presented in a 'Risk of bias' graph ( Figure 1), and a 'Risk of bias' summary ( Figure 2).

For a long time, a moist environment was regarded as optimal ( Winter 1962), however, in the 1980s, Jonkman 1989 suggested that epidermal wound healing is best accelerated in an environment "between moist and dry," (i. We are uncertain whether there is a difference in wound infection (comparison topical antimicrobial agent (Aquacel‐Ag) and MEBO; RR 0. It is uncertain whether topical antimicrobial agents make any difference in effects as the evidence is low to very low‐certainty. We defined studies with low risk of bias as RCTs which fulfilled the three criteria of adequate sequence generation, adequate allocation concealment and blinded outcome assessment.

Downgraded once for imprecision: effect estimates could not be calculated, limited number of participants (fewer than 100). In the Netherlands, approximately 20% of the people with head and neck burns treated in a burn centre required primary facial surgery and 5% received facial reconstruction in a later phase ( Hoogewerf 2013a). For each outcome, summary estimates of treatment effect (with 95% confidence intervals (CI)) were calculated for every comparison.