Citation

Menegat TA, Oliveira AF, Majewski MGC, Blanes L, Juliano Y, Novo NF, Ferreira LM. Acta Cir. Bras. 2019; 34(10): e201901007.

Affiliation

Head, Full Professor, Division of Plastic Surgery, UNIFESP. Researcher 1A-CNPq, Director Medicine III-CAPES, Sao Paulo-SP, Brazil. Intellectual, scientific, conception and design of the study; critical revision.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2019, Sociedade Brasileira para o Desenvolvimento da Pesquisa em Cirurgia)

DOI

10.1590/s0102-865020190100000007

PMID

31826150

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.

Language: en