BACKGROUND: The face is a very frequent site of burn injuries. This multicenter, randomized, controlled trial thus investigates the effectiveness of cerium nitrate-silver sulfadiazine in the treatment of facial burns compared with silver sulfadiazine.METHODS: Adult patients with acute facial burns admitted to Dutch burn centers were randomized to treatment with either cerium nitrate-silver sulfadiazine or silver sulfadiazine. Primary outcome was need for surgery and time to wound healing. Aesthetic and functional outcome was assessed at 3, 6, and 12 months after burn.RESULTS: From March of 2006 until January of 2009, 179 patients were randomized and 154 could be included. The two groups of patients (cerium nitrate-silver sulfadiazine group, n=78; silver sulfadiazine group, n=76), were comparable regarding sex, age, percentage total body surface area burned, and cause. During admission, four patients died, leaving 77 and 73 patients for primary analyses, respectively. Surgery was required in 13 (16.9 percent) compared with 15 patients (20.5 percent) (p=0.57; odds ratio, 0.8; 95 percent CI, 0.3 to 1.8), respectively. Median time to wound healing was 11.0 days in the cerium nitrate-silver sulfadiazine group (interquartile range, 7.0 to 15.0) and 9.0 days for silver sulfadiazine group (interquartile range, 5.0 to 15.75) (p=0.17). There were no significant differences in functional and aesthetic outcome.CONCLUSIONS: No differences were found in effectiveness of both treatments. The vast majority of facial burns do not require surgery, and treatment with cerium nitrate-silver sulfadiazine and silver sulfadiazine leads to satisfactory outcome, both aesthetically and functionally.
Aims: Prescribing errors among junior doctors are common in clinical practice because many lack prescribing competence after graduation. This is in part due to inadequate education in clinical pharmacology and therapeutics (CP&T) in the undergraduate medical curriculum. To support CP&T education, it is important to determine which drugs medical undergraduates should be able to prescribe safely and effectively without direct supervision by the time they graduate. Currently, there is no such list with broad-based consensus. Therefore, the aim was to reach consensus on a list of essential drugs for undergraduate medical education in the Netherlands. Methods: A two-round modified Delphi study was conducted among pharmacists, medical specialists, junior doctors and pharmacotherapy teachers from all eight Dutch academic hospitals. Participants were asked to indicate whether it was essential that medical graduates could prescribe specific drugs included on a preliminary list. Drugs for which ≥80% of all respondents agreed or strongly agreed were included in the final list. Results: In all, 42 (65%) participants completed the two Delphi rounds. A total of 132 drugs (39%) from the preliminary list and two (3%) newly proposed drugs were included. Conclusions: This is the first Delphi consensus study to identify the drugs that Dutch junior doctors should be able to prescribe safely and effectively without direct supervision. This list can be used to harmonize and support the teaching and assessment of CP&T. Moreover, this study shows that a Delphi method is suitable to reach consensus on such a list, and could be used for a European list.
MULTIFILE
