Literature DB >> 21110396

Medicinal use of potato-derived products: conclusions of a rapid versus full systematic review.

Stijn Van de Velde, Emmy De Buck, Tessa Dieltjens, Bert Aertgeerts.   

Abstract

Vlachojannis et al reported a systematic review on the medicinal use of potato-derived products. The authors identified five trials for inclusion in the review, including one study on the treatment of burns. Based on this RCT the review authors concluded that potato peel is not recommended for burns. As the authors of a rapid review on the use of potato peels for burns, we read this systematic review with great interest. Although the concept of rapid review is rising, accelerating the review process might introduce bias and its conclusions may be subject to change once a systematic review is available. Since this rapid and systematic review were done at similar times, we explored if the results were consistent. We identified three trials on the use of potato peels. Two of these trials were not mentioned in the systematic review. The evidence indicates that sterile potato peel dressings are better than gauze alone during the healing phase.While there is no evidence of an antibacterial effect, we concluded that potato peels promote healing. Potato peel dressings might be the best available dressing in resource poor countries. Because systematic reviews have a major impact it is crucial that systematic reviews meet specified quality criteria. Therefore we draw attention to adherance to the PRISMA statement.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 21110396     DOI: 10.1002/ptr.3356

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Phytother Res        ISSN: 0951-418X            Impact factor:   5.878


  8 in total

Review 1.  A scoping review of rapid review methods.

Authors:  Andrea C Tricco; Jesmin Antony; Wasifa Zarin; Lisa Strifler; Marco Ghassemi; John Ivory; Laure Perrier; Brian Hutton; David Moher; Sharon E Straus
Journal:  BMC Med       Date:  2015-09-16       Impact factor: 8.775

Review 2.  Quality of conduct and reporting in rapid reviews: an exploration of compliance with PRISMA and AMSTAR guidelines.

Authors:  Shannon E Kelly; David Moher; Tammy J Clifford
Journal:  Syst Rev       Date:  2016-05-10

Review 3.  What are the best methodologies for rapid reviews of the research evidence for evidence-informed decision making in health policy and practice: a rapid review.

Authors:  Michelle M Haby; Evelina Chapman; Rachel Clark; Jorge Barreto; Ludovic Reveiz; John N Lavis
Journal:  Health Res Policy Syst       Date:  2016-11-25

4.  Assessing the validity of abbreviated literature searches for rapid reviews: protocol of a non-inferiority and meta-epidemiologic study.

Authors:  Barbara Nussbaumer-Streit; Irma Klerings; Gernot Wagner; Viktoria Titscher; Gerald Gartlehner
Journal:  Syst Rev       Date:  2016-11-22

5.  Wound Healing Effects of Prunus yedoensis Matsumura Bark in Scalded Rats.

Authors:  Jin-Ho Lee; Kyungjin Lee; Mi-Hwa Lee; Bumjung Kim; Khanita Suman Chinannai; Heseung Hur; Inhye Ham; Ho-Young Choi
Journal:  Evid Based Complement Alternat Med       Date:  2017-03-19       Impact factor: 2.629

Review 6.  Methods for Developing Evidence Reviews in Short Periods of Time: A Scoping Review.

Authors:  Ahmed M Abou-Setta; Maya Jeyaraman; Abdelhamid Attia; Hesham G Al-Inany; Mauricio Ferri; Mohammed T Ansari; Chantelle M Garritty; Kenneth Bond; Susan L Norris
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-12-08       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  Implications of applying methodological shortcuts to expedite systematic reviews: three case studies using systematic reviews from agri-food public health.

Authors:  Mai T Pham; Lisa Waddell; Andrijana Rajić; Jan M Sargeant; Andrew Papadopoulos; Scott A McEwen
Journal:  Res Synth Methods       Date:  2016-06-10       Impact factor: 5.273

Review 8.  Utilization of potato peel as eco-friendly products: A review.

Authors:  Haftom Yemane Gebrechristos; Weihua Chen
Journal:  Food Sci Nutr       Date:  2018-07-12       Impact factor: 2.863

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.