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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |