Paediatric chemical burns: a clinical review.

Although they account for a small proportion of burns in paediatrics, injuries from chemicals can be just as devastating as other mechanisms of burn injury. At least 25,000 chemicals exist which can cause burns: in children, they are often caused by household chemicals via accidental exposure. The mechanism by which corrosive substances produce chemical burns highlights the importance of early and plentiful irrigation of the burn area, removal of contaminated clothes and careful clinical assessment. Surgical intervention is uncommon but often follows the principles for thermal burns. This article reviews the aetiology, incidence, clinical presentation, management, complications and prevention of chemical burns. What is Known • Chemical burns in paediatrics are often caused by accidental exposure to chemicals available at home • Differences in the pathophysiology of chemical burns reinforces the need for early irrigation What is New • New irrigation fluids show promise in adults and need further study in children • The nature of chemical cutaneous burns can make assessment of wound depth difficult. Laser Doppler Imaging (LDI) is an accurate technique that can be used clinically to determine burn depth in thermal burns and is an area of future interest in the assessment of chemical burns.

Laryngotracheal stenosis post mechanical ventilation in paediatric burns patients.

INTRODUCTION: The duration of endotracheal intubation is thought to be the most important factor in the development of acquired laryngotracheal stenosis (LTS); however, there is a paucity of studies examining the incidence of LTS in the paediatric burn population. The aim of this study was to determine the incidence of LTS in paediatric burns patients requiring mechanical ventilation to develop guidelines for consideration of a tracheostomy. METHODS: A retrospective review of all children treated at The Children's Hospital at Westmead (CHW) Burns Unit (BU) from December 2009 to December 2019 who required intubation for their burn injury. RESULTS: During the 10-year study period 115 patients required endotracheal intubation after having sustained a burn injury. Of these 11 were excluded. The mean age was 6.2 years (0-16), with the majority of patients being male (65%). The average TBSA was 18.5% with a range of 0.1-70%. Flame was the most common mechanism of burn (n = 59). Burns to the head and/or neck were the most common indication for intubation with the mean duration of intubation 6.1 days (range 0-40). Tracheostomies were performed on two patients (1.9%). LTS was found in two patients (1.9%). CONCLUSION: LTS in the paediatric burn population post mechanical ventilation appears to be a rare event. Endotracheal intubation can safely be used as the route of airway access in paediatric burns patients. Based on our experience, a definitive recommendation on the timing of tracheostomy in the paediatric burn patient cannot be made.

Has the reporting of patient-important outcomes improved in surgical trials? A meta-epidemiological study.

BACKGROUND: Clinical trials should ideally use patient-important outcomes to ensure their results are clinically relevant. We aimed to determine if the proportion of patient-important outcomes in surgical trials has changed over the last decade, and to determine whether patient-important outcomes are more likely to be specified as primary outcomes. METHODS: The 350 most recent randomized controlled trials examining surgical interventions on humans and published in English were included. Outcomes were classified as patient-important, surrogate or laboratory using standardized definitions, along with either primary, secondary or unspecified. Mean proportions were calculated across all trials and a chi-squared test was used to detect the difference between time periods. Contingency tables were populated with each trial's outcomes, characterizing whether each outcome was patient-important or not, and whether it was specified as primary or secondary. Odds ratios were then combined in a random-effects meta-analysis to calculate a pooled odds ratio. RESULTS: A total of 64% of all outcomes were patient-important. The mean (standard deviation) proportion of patient-important outcomes per trial was 66% (31.4), which significantly increased over the last decade, from 60% (31.6) in 2009. The mean proportion of primary outcomes which were patient-important increased from 64% (46.0) in 2009 to 77% (40.6) in 2019. Patient-important outcomes were not significantly associated with being a primary outcome and this did not change significantly over the decade. CONCLUSION: Patient-important outcomes are still poorly represented as primary outcomes. The ongoing impact of updated reporting guidelines may improve the reporting of patient-important outcomes in surgical trials.

Has the reporting quality of published randomised controlled trial protocols improved since the SPIRIT statement? A methodological study.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the reporting quality of published randomised controlled trial (RCT) protocols before and after the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) statement (2013), and any association with author, trial or journal factors. DESIGN: Methodological study. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Embase and CENTRAL were electronically searched using optimised search strategies. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Protocols written for an RCT of living humans, published in full text in a peer-reviewed journal and published in the English language. MAIN OUTCOME: Primary outcome was the overall proportion of checklist items which were adequately reported in RCT protocols published before and after the SPIRIT statement. RESULTS: 300 RCT protocols were retrieved; 150 from the period immediately before the SPIRIT statement (9 July 2012 to 28 December 2012) and 150 from a recent period after the SPIRIT statement (25 January 2019 to 20 March 2019). 47.9% (95% CI, 46.5% to 49.3%) of checklist items were adequately reported in RCT protocols before the SPIRIT statement and 56.7% (95% CI, 54.9% to 58.5%) after the SPIRIT statement. This represents an 8.8% (95% CI, 6.6% to 11.1%; p<0.0001) mean improvement in the overall proportion of checklist items adequately reported since the SPIRIT statement. While 40% of individual checklist items had a significant improvement in adequate reporting after the SPIRIT statement, 11.3% had a significant deterioration and there were no RCT protocols in which all individual checklist items were complete. The factors associated with higher reporting quality of RCT protocols in multiple regression analysis were author expertise or experience in epidemiology or statistics, multicentre trials, longer protocol word length and publicly reported journal policy of compliance with the SPIRIT statement. CONCLUSION: The overall reporting quality of RCT protocols has significantly improved since the SPIRIT statement, although a substantial proportion of individual checklist items remain poorly reported. Continued and concerted efforts are required by journals, editors, reviewers and investigators to improve the completeness and transparency of RCT protocols.