Cargando…

Protocol for a systematic review of quantitative burn wound microbiology in the management of burns patients

BACKGROUND: Sepsis from burn injuries can result from colonisation of burn wounds, especially in large surface area burns. Reducing bacterial infection will reduce morbidity and mortality, and mortality for severe burns can be as high as 15 %. There are various quantitative and semi-quantitative tec...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kwei, Johnny, Halstead, Fenella D., Dretzke, Janine, Oppenheim, Beryl A., Moiemen, Naiem S.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4635620/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26542240
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13643-015-0137-9
_version_ 1782399534492549120
author Kwei, Johnny
Halstead, Fenella D.
Dretzke, Janine
Oppenheim, Beryl A.
Moiemen, Naiem S.
author_facet Kwei, Johnny
Halstead, Fenella D.
Dretzke, Janine
Oppenheim, Beryl A.
Moiemen, Naiem S.
author_sort Kwei, Johnny
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Sepsis from burn injuries can result from colonisation of burn wounds, especially in large surface area burns. Reducing bacterial infection will reduce morbidity and mortality, and mortality for severe burns can be as high as 15 %. There are various quantitative and semi-quantitative techniques to monitor bacterial load on wounds. In the UK, burn wounds are typically monitored for the presence or absence of bacteria through the collection and culture of swabs, but no absolute count is obtained. Quantitative burn wound culture provides a measure of bacterial count and is gaining increased popularity in some countries. It is however more resource intensive, and evidence for its utility appears to be inconsistent. This systematic review therefore aims to assess the evidence on the utility and reliability of different quantitative microbiology techniques in terms of diagnosing or predicting clinical outcomes. METHODS/DESIGN: Standard systematic review methods aimed at minimising bias will be employed for study identification, selection and data extraction. Bibliographic databases and ongoing trial registers will be searched and conference abstracts screened. Studies will be eligible if they are prospective studies or systematic reviews of burn patients (any age) for whom quantitative microbiology has been performed, whether it is compared to another method. Quality assessment will be based on quality assessment tools for diagnostic and prognostic studies and tailored to the review as necessary. Synthesis is likely to be primarily narrative, but meta-analysis may be considered where clinical and methodological homogeneity exists. DISCUSSION: Given the increasing use of quantitative methods, this is a timely systematic review, which will attempt to clarify the evidence base. As far as the authors are aware, it will be the first to address this topic. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO, CRD42015023903
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4635620
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-46356202015-11-07 Protocol for a systematic review of quantitative burn wound microbiology in the management of burns patients Kwei, Johnny Halstead, Fenella D. Dretzke, Janine Oppenheim, Beryl A. Moiemen, Naiem S. Syst Rev Protocol BACKGROUND: Sepsis from burn injuries can result from colonisation of burn wounds, especially in large surface area burns. Reducing bacterial infection will reduce morbidity and mortality, and mortality for severe burns can be as high as 15 %. There are various quantitative and semi-quantitative techniques to monitor bacterial load on wounds. In the UK, burn wounds are typically monitored for the presence or absence of bacteria through the collection and culture of swabs, but no absolute count is obtained. Quantitative burn wound culture provides a measure of bacterial count and is gaining increased popularity in some countries. It is however more resource intensive, and evidence for its utility appears to be inconsistent. This systematic review therefore aims to assess the evidence on the utility and reliability of different quantitative microbiology techniques in terms of diagnosing or predicting clinical outcomes. METHODS/DESIGN: Standard systematic review methods aimed at minimising bias will be employed for study identification, selection and data extraction. Bibliographic databases and ongoing trial registers will be searched and conference abstracts screened. Studies will be eligible if they are prospective studies or systematic reviews of burn patients (any age) for whom quantitative microbiology has been performed, whether it is compared to another method. Quality assessment will be based on quality assessment tools for diagnostic and prognostic studies and tailored to the review as necessary. Synthesis is likely to be primarily narrative, but meta-analysis may be considered where clinical and methodological homogeneity exists. DISCUSSION: Given the increasing use of quantitative methods, this is a timely systematic review, which will attempt to clarify the evidence base. As far as the authors are aware, it will be the first to address this topic. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO, CRD42015023903 BioMed Central 2015-11-06 /pmc/articles/PMC4635620/ /pubmed/26542240 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13643-015-0137-9 Text en © Kwei et al. 2015 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Protocol
Kwei, Johnny
Halstead, Fenella D.
Dretzke, Janine
Oppenheim, Beryl A.
Moiemen, Naiem S.
Protocol for a systematic review of quantitative burn wound microbiology in the management of burns patients
title Protocol for a systematic review of quantitative burn wound microbiology in the management of burns patients
title_full Protocol for a systematic review of quantitative burn wound microbiology in the management of burns patients
title_fullStr Protocol for a systematic review of quantitative burn wound microbiology in the management of burns patients
title_full_unstemmed Protocol for a systematic review of quantitative burn wound microbiology in the management of burns patients
title_short Protocol for a systematic review of quantitative burn wound microbiology in the management of burns patients
title_sort protocol for a systematic review of quantitative burn wound microbiology in the management of burns patients
topic Protocol
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4635620/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26542240
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13643-015-0137-9
work_keys_str_mv AT kweijohnny protocolforasystematicreviewofquantitativeburnwoundmicrobiologyinthemanagementofburnspatients
AT halsteadfenellad protocolforasystematicreviewofquantitativeburnwoundmicrobiologyinthemanagementofburnspatients
AT dretzkejanine protocolforasystematicreviewofquantitativeburnwoundmicrobiologyinthemanagementofburnspatients
AT oppenheimberyla protocolforasystematicreviewofquantitativeburnwoundmicrobiologyinthemanagementofburnspatients
AT moiemennaiems protocolforasystematicreviewofquantitativeburnwoundmicrobiologyinthemanagementofburnspatients