Examining trends in the evidence base for the treatment of burns and a quality assessment of randomised controlled trials over an 11-year period

Background: Previous articles assessed the evidence-base for the treatment of burns, but the latest was published in 2010, examining data up to and inclusive of 2008. The aim of this article is to examine the trend in the number of high-evidence publications over the subsequent 11-year period and quality-assess RCTs within this timeframe. Materials and methods: All articles published in Burns and Journal of Burn Care and Research (JBCR) were identified using PubMed Search Tools and its Single Citation Matcher function. These journals were manually screened from 01/01/2009-01/06/2020 inclusive. Additionally, a PubMed search was conducted searching for RCTs and meta-analyses in English with the MESH term burns to identify meta-analyses and RCTs in all other journals. The reporting of RCTs was assessed using a modified CONsolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) checklist. Results: A total of 5145 articles were evaluated from Burns and JBCR, with 3230 (62.78%) from Burns and 1915 (37.22%) from JBCR. 0.012% were meta-analyses of RCTs, 0.30% were other meta-analyses, and 2.52% were initially identified as RCTs. Whilst a significant increase in the number of high-evidence publications is observed, these represent 2.83% (n = 237) of the total. An additional 95 RCTs were identified in other journals, 58 being included in quality-analysis. A total 128 RCTs were thus eligible for quality-assessment, the most popular individual topic being wound healing (n = 28; 21.88%). The most highly reported criterion was listed inclusion and exclusion criteria (n = 111; 86.72%) and the least reported criterion was allocation concealment (n = 22; 13.92%). Conclusions: This study observes a positive trend in high-evidence publications. The reporting of several CONSORT criteria in RCTs remains poor. Observation to standard reporting guidelines is advocated to improve the quality of reporting. (C) 2021 Elsevier Ltd and ISBI. All rights reserved.

Automated summary

This study observes a positive trend in high-evidence publications, but the reporting of randomized controlled trials remains poor. It is recommended to adhere to standard reporting guidelines to improve the quality of reporting.