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 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.

Experimental models of scald burns. A scope review

Abstract 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.