Dataset Information

The clinical outcomes of xenografts in the treatment of burn patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Although autografts are not feasible in patients with extensive burn wounds, allografts and xenografts can be used for temporary coverage. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we compared the outcomes of xenografts and the standard treatment of burn wounds.

Methods

International online databases were searched for English articles comparing xenografts with routine treatment in the burn patients. The random-effects model was used to estimate standardized mean differences (SMD) or odds ratios (OR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI).

Results

From a total of 7144 records, 14 studies were included in our review after screening by title and abstracts followed by full-texts. No significant difference in hospital stays was found between the mammalian xenografts and control groups (SMD [95% CI] = - 0.18 [- 0.54-0.18]). The mean number of dressing changes was significantly lower in both mammalian xenografts compared to the controls (SMD [95% CI] = - 1.01 [- 1.61-- 0.41]) and fish xenografts compared to controls (SMD [95% CI] = - 6.16 [- 7.65-- 4.66]). In the fish xenografts, re-epithelialization time was significantly lower compared to controls (SMD [95% CI] = - 1.18 [- 2.23-- 0.14]).

Conclusions

Xenografts showed a significantly lower number of dressing changes and fish xenografts showed significant benefit in re-epithelialization compared to routine treatment. The beneficial results of xenografts suggest further research in the use of different types of xenografts in patients with extensive burn.

SUBMITTER: Irilouzadian R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10652578 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The clinical outcomes of xenografts in the treatment of burn patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Irilouzadian Rana R Khalaji Amirmohammad A Baghsheikhi Hediyeh H Sarmadian Roham R Hoveidamanesh Soodabeh S Ghadimi Tayyeb T Farokh Forghani Siamak S

European journal of medical research 20231116 1

<h4>Background</h4>Although autografts are not feasible in patients with extensive burn wounds, allografts and xenografts can be used for temporary coverage. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we compared the outcomes of xenografts and the standard treatment of burn wounds.<h4>Methods</h4>International online databases were searched for English articles comparing xenografts with routine treatment in the burn patients. The random-effects model was used to estimate standardized mean diff ...[more]

PMID: 37974238

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceConvalescent plasma is a proposed treatment for COVID-19.ObjectiveTo assess clinical outcomes with convalescent plasma treatment vs placebo or standard of care in peer-reviewed and preprint publications or press releases of randomized clinical trials (RCTs).Data sourcesPubMed, the Cochrane COVID-19 trial registry, and the Living Overview of Evidence platform were searched until January 29, 2021.Study selectionThe RCTs selected compared any type of convalescent plasma vs placebo or standard of care for patients with confirmed or suspected COVID-19 in any treatment setting.Data extraction and synthesisTwo reviewers independently extracted data on relevant clinical outcomes, trial characteristics, and patient characteristics and used the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool. The primary analysis included peer-reviewed publications of RCTs only, whereas the secondary analysis included all publicly available RCT data (peer-reviewed publications, preprints, and press releases). Inverse variance-weighted meta-analyses were conducted to summarize the treatment effects. The certainty of the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation.Main outcomes and measuresAll-cause mortality, length of hospital stay, clinical improvement, clinical deterioration, mechanical ventilation use, and serious adverse events.ResultsA total of 1060 patients from 4 peer-reviewed RCTs and 10 722 patients from 6 other publicly available RCTs were included. The summary risk ratio (RR) for all-cause mortality with convalescent plasma in the 4 peer-reviewed RCTs was 0.93 (95% CI, 0.63 to 1.38), the absolute risk difference was -1.21% (95% CI, -5.29% to 2.88%), and there was low certainty of the evidence due to imprecision. Across all 10 RCTs, the summary RR was 1.02 (95% CI, 0.92 to 1.12) and there was moderate certainty of the evidence due to inclusion of unpublished data. Among the peer-reviewed RCTs, the summary hazard ratio was 1.17 (95% CI, 0.07 to 20.34) for length of hospital stay, the summary RR was 0.76 (95% CI, 0.20 to 2.87) for mechanical ventilation use (the absolute risk difference for mechanical ventilation use was -2.56% [95% CI, -13.16% to 8.05%]), and there was low certainty of the evidence due to imprecision for both outcomes. Limited data on clinical improvement, clinical deterioration, and serious adverse events showed no significant differences.Conclusions and relevanceTreatment with convalescent plasma compared with placebo or standard of care was not significantly associated with a decrease in all-cause mortality or with any benefit for other clinical outcomes. The certainty of the evidence was low to moderate for all-cause mortality and low for other outcomes.

Project description:BackgroundSmoke inhalation injury increases overall burn mortality. Locally applied heparin attenuates lung injury in burn animal models of smoke inhalation. It is uncertain whether local treatment of heparin is benefit for burn patients with inhalation trauma. We systematically reviewed published clinical trial data to evaluate the effectiveness of nebulized heparin in treating burn patients with inhalation injury.MethodsA systematic search was undertaken in PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Science, the Chinese Journals Full-text Database, the China Biomedical Literature Database and the Wanfang Database to obtain clinical controlled trails evaluating nebulized heparin in the treatment of burn patients with inhalation injury. Patient and clinical characteristics, interventions and physiological and clinical outcomes were recorded. Cochrane Risk of Bias Evaluation Tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale were used to evaluate data quality. Potential publication bias was assessed by Egger's test. A sensitivity analysis was conducted to assess the stability of the results. The meta-analysis was conducted in R 3.5.1 software.ResultsNine trials were eligible for the systematic review and meta-analysis. Nebulized heparin can reduce lung injury and improve lung function in burn patients with inhalation injury without abnormal coagulation or bleeding, but the findings are still controversial. Mortality in the heparin-treated group was lower than that of the traditional treatment group (relative risk (RR) 0.75). The duration of mechanical ventilation (DOMV) was shorter in the heparin-treated group compared to the traditional treatment group (standardized mean difference (SMD) -0.78). Length of hospital stay was significantly shorter than that in the traditional treatment group (SMD -0.42), but incidence rates of pneumonia and unplanned reintubation were not significantly different in the study groups (RRs 0.97 and 0.88, respectively). No statistically significant publication biases were detected for the above clinical endpoints (p > 0.05).ConclusionsBased on conventional aerosol therapy, heparin nebulization can further reduce lung injury, improve lung function, shorten DOMV and length of hospital stay, and reduce mortality, although it does not reduce the incidence of pneumonia and/or the unplanned reintubation rate.

Project description:ImportanceThe management of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB) during pregnancy is challenging, yet no systematic synthesis of evidence has accurately measured treatment outcomes.ObjectiveTo systematically synthesize treatment outcomes and adverse events among pregnant patients with MDR-TB.Data sourcesPubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and ProQuest were searched from the inception of each database through August 31, 2021.Study selectionStudies containing cohorts of pregnant patients with a defined treatment outcome were eligible.Data extraction and synthesisIndependent reviewers screened studies and assessed the risk of bias. The study followed the Preferring Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analyses reporting guideline. Meta-analysis was performed using random-effects models. The sources of heterogeneity were explored through metaregression.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was the proportion of patients with each treatment outcome (including treatment success, death, loss to follow-up, and treatment failure), and the secondary outcomes included the proportion of patients experiencing adverse events during pregnancy.ResultsIn this systematic review and meta-analysis, 10 studies containing 275 pregnant patients with available data on treatment outcomes were included. The pooled estimate was 72.5% (95% CI, 63.3%-81.0%) for treatment success, 6.8% (95% CI, 2.6%-12.4%) for death, 18.4% (95% CI, 13.1%-24.2%) for loss to follow-up, and 0.6% (95% CI, 0.0%-2.9%) for treatment failure. Treatment success was significantly higher in studies in which the proportion of patients taking linezolid was greater than the median (20.1%) compared with studies in which this proportion was lower than the median (odds ratio, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.05-1.42). More than half of the pregnant patients (54.7%; 95% CI, 43.5%-65.4%) experienced at least 1 type of adverse event, most commonly liver function impairment (30.4%; 95% CI, 17.7%-45.7%), kidney function impairment (14.9%; 95% CI, 6.2%-28.3%), hypokalemia (11.9%; 95% CI, 3.9%-25.6%), hearing loss (11.8%; 95% CI, 5.5%-21.3%), gastrointestinal disorders (11.8%; 95% CI, 5.2%-21.8%), psychiatric disorders (9.1%; 95% CI, 2.5%-21.6%), or anemia (8.9%; 95% CI, 3.6%-17.4%). The pooled proportion of favorable pregnancy outcomes was 73.2% (95% CI, 49.4%-92.1%). The most common types of adverse pregnancy outcomes were preterm birth (9.5%; 95% CI, 0.0%-29.0%), pregnancy loss (6.0%; 95% CI, 1.3%-12.9%), low birth weight (3.9%; 95% CI, 0.0%-18.7%), and stillbirth (1.9%; 95% CI, 0.1%-5.1%). Most of the studies had low-quality (3 studies) or medium-quality (4 studies) scores.Conclusions and relevanceIn this systematic review and meta-analysis, high treatment success and favorable pregnancy outcomes were reported among pregnant patients with MDR-TB. Further research is needed to design shorter, more effective, and safer treatment regimens for pregnant patients with MDR-TB.

Dataset Information

The clinical outcomes of xenografts in the treatment of burn patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

The clinical outcomes of xenografts in the treatment of burn patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets