Oxandrolone in the Treatment of Burn Injuries: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Severe burns induce a profound hypermetabolic response, leading to a prolonged state of catabolism associated with organ dysfunction and delay of wound healing. Oxandrolone, a synthetic testosterone analog, may alleviate the hypermetabolic catabolic state thereby decreasing associated morbidity. However, current literature has reported mixed outcomes on complications following Oxandrolone use, specifically liver and lung function. We conducted an updated systematic review and meta-analysis studying the effects of Oxandrolone on mortality, length of hospital stay, progressive liver dysfunction, and nine secondary outcomes. We searched Pubmed, EMBASE, Web of Science, CINAHL, and Cochrane Databases of Systematic Reviews and Randomized Controlled Trials. Thirty-one randomized control trials and observational studies were included. Basic science and animal studies were excluded. Only studies comparing Oxandrolone to standard of care, or placebo, were included. Oxandrolone did not affect rates of mortality (relative risk [RR]: 0.72; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.47 to 1.08; P = .11) or progressive liver dysfunction (RR: 1.04; 95% CI: 0.59 to 1.85; P = .88), but did decrease length of stay in hospital. Oxandrolone significantly increased weight regain, bone mineral density, percent lean body mass, and decreased wound healing time for donor graft sites. Oxandrolone did not change the incidence of transient liver dysfunction or mechanical ventilation requirements. There is evidence to suggest that Oxandrolone is a beneficial adjunct to the acute care of burn patients; shortening hospital stays and improving several growth and wound healing parameters. It does not appear that Oxandrolone increases the risk of progressive or transient liver injury, although monitoring liver enzymes is recommended.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.024 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".