Cargando…

Experimental models of scald burns. A scope review

PURPOSE: To conduct a scope review of the experimental model described by Walker and Mason, by identifying and analyzing the details of the method. METHODS: The authors searched Pubmed-Medline, Cochrane-Bireme and PEDro databases for articles published between January 2016 and December 2018, using t...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Menegat, Taís Amadio, de Oliveira, Andrea Fernandes, Majewski, Michelle Gioia Coiado, Blanes, Leila, Juliano, Yara, Novo, Neil Ferreira, Ferreira, Lydia Masako
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Sociedade Brasileira para o Desenvolvimento da Pesquisa em Cirurgia 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6907881/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31826150
http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/s0102-865020190100000007
_version_ 1783478618943389696
author Menegat, Taís Amadio
de Oliveira, Andrea Fernandes
Majewski, Michelle Gioia Coiado
Blanes, Leila
Juliano, Yara
Novo, Neil Ferreira
Ferreira, Lydia Masako
author_facet Menegat, Taís Amadio
de Oliveira, Andrea Fernandes
Majewski, Michelle Gioia Coiado
Blanes, Leila
Juliano, Yara
Novo, Neil Ferreira
Ferreira, Lydia Masako
author_sort Menegat, Taís Amadio
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: To conduct a scope review of the experimental model described by Walker and Mason, by identifying and analyzing the details of the method. METHODS: The authors searched Pubmed-Medline, Cochrane-Bireme and PEDro databases for articles published between January 2016 and December 2018, using the following search queries: burns, burn injuries, models animal, and animal experimentation. All articles whose authors used Walker and Mason's model - with or without changes to the method in Wistar rats - were included in this study. RESULTS: The search identified 45 mentions of Walker and Mason's model; however, after reading each summary, 20 were excluded (of which 5 due to duplicity). The inconsistencies observed after the scope review were: water temperature, length of time of exposure of the experimental model's skin to water, extent of the burnt area, and the description of the thickness/depth of the injury. CONCLUSIONS: Reproducibility of a scientific method is the basis to prove the veracity of the observed results. Thus, it is necessary to have a greater number of publications that adopt a reproducible scientific method, for this review found inconsistencies in the description of Walker and Mason's model.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6907881
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher Sociedade Brasileira para o Desenvolvimento da Pesquisa em Cirurgia
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-69078812019-12-16 Experimental models of scald burns. A scope review Menegat, Taís Amadio de Oliveira, Andrea Fernandes Majewski, Michelle Gioia Coiado Blanes, Leila Juliano, Yara Novo, Neil Ferreira Ferreira, Lydia Masako Acta Cir Bras Review PURPOSE: To conduct a scope review of the experimental model described by Walker and Mason, by identifying and analyzing the details of the method. METHODS: The authors searched Pubmed-Medline, Cochrane-Bireme and PEDro databases for articles published between January 2016 and December 2018, using the following search queries: burns, burn injuries, models animal, and animal experimentation. All articles whose authors used Walker and Mason's model - with or without changes to the method in Wistar rats - were included in this study. RESULTS: The search identified 45 mentions of Walker and Mason's model; however, after reading each summary, 20 were excluded (of which 5 due to duplicity). The inconsistencies observed after the scope review were: water temperature, length of time of exposure of the experimental model's skin to water, extent of the burnt area, and the description of the thickness/depth of the injury. CONCLUSIONS: Reproducibility of a scientific method is the basis to prove the veracity of the observed results. Thus, it is necessary to have a greater number of publications that adopt a reproducible scientific method, for this review found inconsistencies in the description of Walker and Mason's model. Sociedade Brasileira para o Desenvolvimento da Pesquisa em Cirurgia 2019-12-09 /pmc/articles/PMC6907881/ /pubmed/31826150 http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/s0102-865020190100000007 Text en https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Review
Menegat, Taís Amadio
de Oliveira, Andrea Fernandes
Majewski, Michelle Gioia Coiado
Blanes, Leila
Juliano, Yara
Novo, Neil Ferreira
Ferreira, Lydia Masako
Experimental models of scald burns. A scope review
title Experimental models of scald burns. A scope review
title_full Experimental models of scald burns. A scope review
title_fullStr Experimental models of scald burns. A scope review
title_full_unstemmed Experimental models of scald burns. A scope review
title_short Experimental models of scald burns. A scope review
title_sort experimental models of scald burns. a scope review
topic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6907881/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31826150
http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/s0102-865020190100000007
work_keys_str_mv AT menegattaisamadio experimentalmodelsofscaldburnsascopereview
AT deoliveiraandreafernandes experimentalmodelsofscaldburnsascopereview
AT majewskimichellegioiacoiado experimentalmodelsofscaldburnsascopereview
AT blanesleila experimentalmodelsofscaldburnsascopereview
AT julianoyara experimentalmodelsofscaldburnsascopereview
AT novoneilferreira experimentalmodelsofscaldburnsascopereview
AT ferreiralydiamasako experimentalmodelsofscaldburnsascopereview