Comparison of early surgical intervention to delayed surgical intervention for treatment of thermal burns in adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Burns are one of the most prevalent forms of wound in children and adults, although timing of surgical excision for deep partial or full thickness burns remains controversial. To determine if early surgical intervention (excision and grafting within 7 days) improves outcomes when compared to delayed surgical intervention (excision and grafting after 7 days) in adults with thermal burns. We searched the following electronic databases: Cochrane Wound Group Specialized Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL. We hand searched the references of included studies and major review articles. We contacted authors of included trials for information about any ongoing trials or unpublished studies. Selection criteria: We included randomized controlled trials, both published and unpublished, comparing early versus delayed surgical intervention for treatment of thermal burns of all degrees and percent total body surface areas (%TBSA) in adult patients. Data collection and analysis: Two authors independently, and in duplicate, screened the titles abstracts and then full texts of all citations for possible inclusion. Data from eligible studies were extracted independently and in duplicate using Microsoft Excel. We pooled outcome data according to the guidelines of the Cochrane Collaboration using Review Manager 5.3 software and random effects model. We assessed Risk of Bias (RoB) in individual studies using the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool and overall certainty of evidence for each outcome using the GRADE framework. A total of 9 RCTs were included in the systematic review; 6 in the quantitative meta-analysis. Early surgical intervention may result in a small albeit imprecise reduction in mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.78, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.53 to 1.14, I2 = 46%, very low certainty) and a reduction in length of hospital stay (days) (mean difference (MD) 12.66 days fewer; 95% CI 9.80 days fewer to 15.53 days fewer, I2 = 88%, low certainty), but increased need for red blood cell (RBC) units (MD 27.11; 95% CI 20.17 to 34.06 units, I2 = 99%, low certainty) compared to delayed surgical intervention. Additionally, early excision and grafting may result in better functional and cosmetic outcomes; both based on low certainty evidence. However, no difference in scar quality and proportion of burns requiring re-operation was found (both low certainty). Early excision and grafting may reduce mortality and improve other patient important outcomes in adults with thermal burns, however most outcomes are based on low or very low certainty evidence. Higher quality, methodologically rigorous studies examining health-related quality of life are warranted in order to best inform this clinical question.
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 | 0.014 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.027 | 0.047 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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".