4.4 Review

Variation in definitions of burn wound infection limits the validity of systematic review findings in burn care: A systematic review of systematic reviews

期刊

BURNS
卷 48, 期 1, 页码 1-12

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.burns.2021.05.006

关键词

Burn; Burn wound infection; Validity; Systematic reviews

资金

  1. EPSRC [EP/R003939/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  2. MRC [MR/N006496/1] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigated the variation in burn wound infection (BWI) definitions in systematic reviews (SRs) of burn care interventions and its impact on the identification of effective treatments. The findings revealed heterogeneity in BWI definitions, which affected the drawing of conclusions and limited the validation of effective treatments.
Introduction: Systematic reviews (SR) of high-quality randomised controlled trials can identify effective treatments for burn wound infections (BWIs). Clinical heterogeneity in outcome definitions can prevent valid evidence synthesis, which may limit the reliability of the findings of SRs affected by this heterogeneity. This SR aimed to investigate whether there is variation BWI definitions across studies in SRs of burn care interventions and its impact on identification of effective treatments for patients with burn injuries. Methods: A systematic search of five databases was conducted. Included SRs were: in English, published from January 2010 to October 2018, assessed intervention effects for patients with a burn injury, and reported data about BWI. Results: Twenty-nine SRs, which included 248 studies reporting BWI outcomes, were included in our final dataset. Three SRs used a definition of BWI to select studies for inclusion. Fourteen reported BWI definitions from included studies in the review results. There was heterogeneity of BWI definition in their included studies; across 29 SRs, 32 different BWI indicators were used, with the median across SRs ranging from 1 to 7 (range 1-14). Fourteen SRs accounted for BWI definition heterogeneity in their conclusions, indicating that the issue impacted whether a conclusion could be drawn, and limited the validity of the SR findings. Conclusions: There is variation in BWI definition across SRs and within the studies included in SRs of interventions assessing BWI outcomes. This heterogeneity has prevented conclusions about intervention effects being drawn, and only half of the SR authors have accounted for it in their findings. Reviews that have collated this data without reference to the heterogeneity should be viewed with caution, since it may limit the validity of evidence for the identification of effective treatments for BWI. The use of a newly developed core indicator set to support consistent reporting of indicators and standardisation of BWI outcome reporting will enable effective evidence synthesis.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据