Silver Confers No Additional Benefit to Re-Epithelialization of Pediatric Partial Thickness Burns: Results of a Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Silver dressings are widely used in the treatment of partial thickness burns due to their antimicrobial properties. However, silver ions may delay wound healing, and their clinical benefit in uncomplicated partial thickness pediatric burns remains unclear. This study compared Aquacel Ag (a silver-containing dressing) with Aquacel (an identical dressing without silver) to determine whether the addition of silver improves re-epithelialization, infection rates, or scar quality. METHODS: In this prospective, randomized, single-blind controlled trial, children under 16 years presenting within 72 hours of injury with <15% TBSA partial thickness burns were randomized to receive either Aquacel Ag or Aquacel. The primary outcome was percentage of re-epithelialization at first follow-up (within 10 days). Secondary outcomes included time to complete re-epithelialization, infection rates, and Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS) scores at 3 and 6 months. Statistical analysis included t-tests, Wilcoxon tests, and Kaplan-Meier survival analysis. RESULTS: Seventy-five patients were included in the final analysis (Aquacel Ag: n=37; Aquacel: n=38). No significant differences were observed in mean percentage re-epithelialization at first follow-up (Aquacel Ag: 91.5% vs. Aquacel: 85.2%, P =0.13) or median time to complete re-epithelialization (11.9 vs. 13.0 days, P =0.31). No clinically significant infections occurred in either group. VSS scores at 3 and 6 months were similar. CONCLUSIONS: Aquacel Ag did not demonstrate superior outcomes compared to Aquacel in the treatment of uncomplicated partial thickness pediatric burns. Given its higher cost and potential for increased pain, the routine use of silver in this context may not be justified.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".