Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37310702›Full record

ArticleJournal of burn care & research : official publication of the American Burn Association2024

Working Towards Holistic Scar Assessment and Improved Shared Decision Making in Global Burn Care.

Milly S van de Warenburg, Elleke F L Munk, Anna Davies, Craig A McBride, Dale W Edgar, Mariëlle L A W Vehmeijer-Heeman, Amber E Young

Open access · hybridAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of burn care & research : official publication of the American Burn Association, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact, top 86% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Milly S van de WarenburgDepartment of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Radboud University Medical Centre, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-4373-2546
Elleke F L MunkDepartment of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Radboud University Medical Centre, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-6503-5023
Anna DaviesTranslational Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Craig A McBrideCentre for Children's Burns and Trauma Research, Child Health Research Centre, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-8377-1748
Dale W EdgarState Adult Burn Unit, Fiona Stanley Hospital, Murdoch, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-7336-9317
Mariëlle L A W Vehmeijer-HeemanDepartment of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Radboud University Medical Centre, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Amber E YoungCentre for Surgical Research, Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, Bristol University, Bristol, UK.
Radboud University Nijmegen · NLUniversity of Bristol · GBChildren's Medical Research Institute · AUFiona Stanley Hospital · AU

Funding

Advanced Research Fellowship NIHR 301362National Institute for Health ResearchNHS Department of HealthNIHR Biomedical Research CentreUniversity Hospitals BristolUniversity of BristolWeston NHS Foundation Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cutaneous burn scars impact various aspects of life. Scar treatment is mainly evaluated on scar characteristics. Consensus is needed on which other outcomes to capture, ensuring they are relevant to patients, clinicians, and researchers. The aim of this study was to identify, discuss and analyze outcomes related to cutaneous burn scarring, incorporating the voice of patients and views of healthcare professionals. For this, a Delphi process consisting of two survey rounds and a consensus meeting was initiated. Burn scar-related outcomes were identified from an existing comprehensive list of 100 outcomes by an international panel of patients, healthcare professionals and researchers. Fifty-nine outcomes were identified from the Delphi process as related to scarring (≥60% votes). Outcomes less impactful in relation to scar outcomes included psychosocial issues, sense of normality, understanding of treatment, costs and systemic issues. To represent a holistic assessment of outcomes related to cutaneous burn scarring, this Delphi process established a battery of outcomes currently included in scar quality assessment tools, and an expanded set of less frequently considered outcomes. Future work in this area must include the patient voice from developing countries. This is essential to identify globally applicable outcomes related to scarring.

Indexed as

BurnsCicatrixDecision Making, SharedHealth PersonnelHumansQuality of Life

Identifiers

PMID37310702
PMCPMC10768758
OpenAlexW4380422888

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.