Question: Among adults and children with thermal injuries (P), does the use of a wet dressing (honey) (I), compared with dry dressing (SSD cream) (C),
change complications, pain, tissue healing, need for advanced medical care, patient satisfaction, rates of fasciotomy (O)?
Quality assessment
No of patients
Effect
Quality Importance
No of
studies
Design
Risk of
bias
Inconsistency Indirectness Imprecision
Other
Wet dressings Dry dressings
considerations
(honey)
(SSD cream)
Relative
(95% CI)
Absolute
Mean time to healing (Subrahmanyam 1991, 497) (Better indicated by lower values)
1
randomised
trials
serious1 no serious
inconsistency
serious2
serious3
none
52
52
serious2
serious3
none
2/52
(3.8%)
16/52
(30.8%)
none
39/43
(90.7%)
3/41
(7.3%)
-
MD 7.8 lower (8.87 to
6.73 lower)
 IMPORTANT
VERY
LOW
Adverse events (Subrahmanyam 1991, 497)
1
randomised
trials
serious1 no serious
inconsistency

VERY
LOW
CRITICAL
834 more per 1000

(from 230 more to 1000 VERY
more)
LOW
CRITICAL
RR 0.13 (0.03 268 fewer per 1000
to 0.52)
(from 148 fewer to 298
fewer)
Infection disappeared after 7 days of treatment (Subrahmanyam 1991, 497)
1
randomised
trials
serious1 no serious
inconsistency
serious2
serious3
RR 12.40
(4.15 to
37.00)
1
sequence generation unclear, allocation concealment unclear, no blinding of participants (information from Cochrane review)
not wet vs dry dressing
3
small sample size
2
1
Question: Among adults and children with thermal injuries (P), does the use of a wet dressing (honey) (I), compared with dry dressing (potato peel) (C),
change complications, pain, tissue healing, need for advanced medical care, patient satisfaction, rates of fasciotomy (O)?
Quality assessment
No of patients
Effect
Quality Importance
No of
studies
Design
Risk of
bias
Inconsistency
Indirectness Imprecision
Other
Wet dressings
considerations
(honey)
Dry dressings
(potato peel)
Relative
(95% CI)
Absolute
Mean time to healing (Subrahmanyam 1996, 491) (Better indicated by lower values)
1
randomised
trials
serious1
no serious
inconsistency
serious2
serious3
none
50
50
-
none
36/40
(90%)
0/42
(0%)
RR 76.56 (4.86
to 1206.92)
MD 5.8 lower (6.68  IMPORTANT
to 4.92 lower)
VERY
LOW
Infection disappeared after 7 days of treatment (Subrahmanyam 1996, 491)
1
randomised
trials
serious1
no serious
inconsistency
serious2
serious3
-

VERY
LOW
CRITICAL
1
sequence generation unclear, allocation concealment unclear, no blinding of participants (information from Cochrane review)
not wet vs dry dressing
3
small sample size
2
2
Question: Among adults and children with thermal injuries (P), does the use of a wet dressing (topical penetrating antibacterial)) (I), compared with dry
dressing ((petrolatum gauze)) (C), change complications, pain, tissue healing, need for advanced medical care, patient satisfaction, rates of fasciotomy (O)?
Quality assessment
No of patients
Effect
Quality Importance
No of
studies
Design
Risk of
bias
Inconsistency
Indirectness Imprecision
Other
considerations
Wet dressings
(topical penetrating
antibacterial)
Dry dressings
(petrolatum
gauze)
3/58
(5.2%)
2/112
(1.8%)
Relative
(95% CI)
Absolute
Infection rate (Heinrich 1988, 253)
1
observational
studies1
serious2 no serious
inconsistency
no serious
indirectness
serious3
none
RR 2.9 (0.5 34 more per 1000  IMPORTANT
to 16.85) (from 9 fewer to VERY
283 more)
LOW
1
non-randomized trial
no control for confounding
3
small sample size
2
Question: Among adults and children with thermal injuries (P), does the use of a wet dressing (topical non-penetrating antibacterial)) (I), compared with dry
dressing ((petrolatum gauze)) (C), change complications, pain, tissue healing, need for advanced medical care, patient satisfaction, rates of fasciotomy (O)?
Quality assessment
No of patients
Effect
Quality Importance
No of
studies
Design
Risk of
bias
Inconsistency
Wet dressings (topical Dry dressings
Other
Indirectness Imprecision
non-penetrating
(petrolatum
considerations
antibacterial)
gauze)
Relative
(95% CI)
Absolute
Infection rate (Heinrich 1988, 253)
1
observational
studies1
serious2 no serious
inconsistency
no serious
indirectness
serious3
none
2/102
(2%)
2/112
(1.8%)
RR 1.1
(0.16 to
7.65)
2 more per 1000  IMPORTANT
(from 15 fewer to VERY
119 more)
LOW
1
non-randomized trial
no control for confounding
3
small sample size
2
3