Talk:Silver sulfadiazine

message: whats up with that advertisement for "silverion"?  that ought to be deleted... i did not find any purpose for the study on this cream it gave me no information
:Sorry, whih adveretisement are you talking about? The article basically seems to say that the drug is no longer recommended. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 07:46, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Advertisement

message: Medical uses of silver has additional information that could be moved here.  The secondary and tertiary literature is mixed concerning SSD use in wound/burn dressings.  I'll have to go back and check, but I believe that topically applied silver-containing products are not approved for OTC.Desoto10 (talk) 05:52, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  medical uses of silver 

message: This makes no sense to me. A Dr. prescribed it for a severe burn my wife had at work, and the lack of blistering and the short healing time was amazing. I know a number of other people who also had it prescribed and they just rave over it. 67.210.53.245 (talk) 22:50, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you look at the refs? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:49, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whoever wrote this has an agenda 

message: In the beginning of the article, it is said that 'Studies have found that silver sulfadiazine may increase healing times; and it is therefore not recommended by the authors of a Cochrane review.' This sounds very confusing; a cream isn't recommended because it works? After reading the linked Cochrane source, I found the following passage:
:'However, these conventional dressings tend to adhere to the wound surface (Thomas 1995) and their need for frequent changes traumatises newly epithelialised surfaces and delays healing. Silver sulphadiazine cream itself is also thought to delay wound healing due to a toxic effect on regenerating keratinocytes (Wasiak 2005)'
I have no medical background whatsoever, so I don't feel confident rewriting the article myself - but the wording of the wikipedia introduction is very confusing right now. 83.101.70.58 (talk) 12:18, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: "increase healing times" means it takes longer to get better. This means it doesn't work and worse than that may be harmful. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:22, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change wording in the beginning 

message: Whoever wrote this article is a Silvadene hater.  Is it because its white?  Its so racist.  Why does color always have to weigh in on the opinion of meds.  Clearly a brown or yellow med wrote this.   Compare this article to the article for Thalidomide.  That article is a fair and balanced article written from a neutral position, even though the drug caused hundreds of birth defects in Europe. This article is not neutral and gives me bad gas in my stomach when I read it.  It needs to be rewritten.  My daughter burned her leg, and the top burn clinic in Nebraska, UNMC, uses silvadene.  Just because the wound takes longer to heal, if that is true of silvadene, doesn't mean it shouldn't be used.  Scar tissue forms faster than regular epithelial tissue, but is inferior.  Vokster (talk) 18:29, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wow, why such a hater? 

message: Article provides very little information and seems to be written as a hit piece to reduce usage.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.56.124.93 (talk) 03:10, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article needs to be rewritten 

message: irresponsibly written
what looks like mutliple references/citations are actually traceable to "Cochrane" which is questionable as a well-vetted responsible peer-reviewed source to begin with
contributors are probably anti-vaccinators as well  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.134.108 (talk) 21:54, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  irresponsibly written article 

message: Hello,
I have noticed that there are several sections in this article that have been completely overrun by someone just stating that silver sulfadiazine is something that should not be used in medicine and that it increases the time at which it takes someone to heal from their wounds, but the articles that are used to cite these findings do not have specified controls, they do not specify on what kind of wound they are treating (i.e. first, second, or third degree burn, pressure ulcer, skin tear, wound that involves complications) and they are inconsistent with related meta data on the whole of the Cochrane studies done in terms of treating various wounds with silver sulfadiazine. The articles that I have read usually state that there is no real measurable difference between the use of silver suladiazine and other forms of treatment for wound care when combined with a compression dressing. The findings of the whole of these studies basically comes to the conclusion that "An urgent need exists for further research studies that have sufficient sample sizes, adequate follow-up periods, appropriate comparators, detailed descriptions of interventions and relevant primary and secondary outcomes." 
Because of all of this data leading from one way to the next and the vast majority of healthcare professionals still using silver sulfadiazide in their practice, I feel that there needs to be an additional section with all of this data from different studies that should be more closely monitored called Controversy.
I feel like this section should be more closely monitored by people with more access to these articles and not just the article abstracts since these can be misleading from the actual data that the study shows. I also feel that all of these studies, whether having positive or negative outcomes, should be looked at sceptically and should be seen for whether or not they have a defined type of wound they are checking, whether or not they are comparing silver sulfadiazide with other forms of treatment and what those other forms of treatment are, and whether or not their study screened for patients with varying complications to their wound or not, and if so what complications were present. 
I also would like to edit the Medical Applications section to actually include the primary medical applications for silver sulfadiazine and not just the controversy that exists between its use and its efficacy based on these studies.
::We have a couple of recent systematic reviews of high quality trials that show no benefit for silver in wound healing
::This in Burn in 2012 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22030441
::And a 2008 Cochrane review.
::What many practisioners do is based on tradition not evidence which may be the case here. 
::I have adjusted the wording to emphasize that the evidence is poor and worse outcomes are tentative at best.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:47, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Silver sulfadiazine misrepresented in this article and article needs serious editing to clarify article data that it pulls 

message: In the "Medical Uses" section, it is not specified which trials are referred to in the sentence "A Cochrane review from 2013 found that most of the trials had methodological shortcomings and thus are of little use". Looking at the cited source, it appears that this sentence refers to trials "regarding the effect of different dressings on the healing of superficial and partial thickness burn injuries".
I suggest this information be incorporated into the article text as its current form is both confusing writing (referring to "the trials" without any prior mention of trials) and could lead to misinterpretation (such as the idea that the initial medical trials which established the safety and utility of silver sulfadiazine were of poor quality).--2601:18A:C781:55A2:2C8B:8C98:A05E:1283 (talk) 17:43, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unclear language: Which trials? 

message: I find it strange that under the subsection 'Medical uses' the first thing that is said is 'other antibiotics [are found] to be more effective in the healing of superficial and partial thickness burn injuries'. While this may be true, it should not be the main focus of the 'medical uses' subsection, and should go either under a paragraph that actually describes the medical usage of silver sulfadiazine or should get its own section altogether. As of right now the article, which should be informative, instead reads (as earlier stated) as a mild hit-piece designed to dissuade readers from its use.  Itsevanffs (talk) 14:48, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Medical uses