Ensuring that the outcome domains proposed for use in burns research are relevant to adult burn patients:a systematic review of qualitative research evidence

Background There have been several attempts to define core outcome domains for use in research focused on adult burns. Some have been based in expert opinion, whilst others have used primary qualitative research to understand patients’ perspectives on outcomes. To date there has not been a systematic review of qualitative research in burns to identify a comprehensive list of patient-centred outcome domains. We therefore conducted a systematic review of qualitative research studies in adult burns. Methods We searched multiple databases for English-language, peer-reviewed, qualitative research papers. We used search strategies devised using the SPIDER tool for qualitative synthesis. Our review utilized an iterative three-step approach: (1) outcome-focused coding; (2) development of descriptive accounts of outcome-relevant issues; and (3) revisiting studies and the broader theoretical literature in order to frame the review findings. Results Forty-one articles were included. We categorized papers according to their primary focus. The category with the most papers was adaptation to life following burn injury (n = 13). We defined 19 outcome domains across the 41 articles: (1) sense of self; (2) emotional and psychological morbidity; (3) sensory; (4) scarring and scar characteristics; (5) impact on relationships; (6) mobility and range of joint motion; (7) work; (8) activities of daily living and self-care; (9) treatment burden; (10) engagement in activities; (11) wound healing and infection; (12) other physical manifestations; (13) financial impact; (14) impact on spouses and family members; (15) analgesia and side effects; (16) cognitive skills; (17) length of hospital stay; (18) access to healthcare; and (19) speech and communication. We suggest that sense of self is a core concern for patients that, to date, has not been clearly conceptualized in the burns outcome domain literature. Conclusions This outcome domain framework identifies domains that are not covered in previous attempts to outline core outcome domains for adult burn research. It does so with reference to existing theoretical perspectives from the sociology and psychology of medicine. We propose that this framework can be used as a basis to ensure that outcome assessment is patient-centred. Sense of self requires further consideration as a core outcome domain

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 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, CRD4201502390