Lesley A Smith
Research Subjects
Lesley A Smith has a total of 6 co-authors. Here are the top co-authors by number of shared publications:
- Henry J. McQuay
Pain Research, Nuffield Department of Anaesthetics, University of Oxford, Oxford Radcliffe Hospitals, The Churchill, Headington, Oxford, OX3 7LJ, UK
2 shared publications - Robert Andrew Moore
Pain Research & Nuffield Division of Anaesthetics, University of Oxford, The Churchill, Oxford, UK.
2 shared publications - David J. Gavaghan
University of Oxford
1 shared publication - Fiona Campbell
RCN Institute, Radcliffe Infirmary
1 shared publication - Kate Seers
Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK
1 shared publication - Owen A Moore
Pain Research Unit and Nuffield Department of Anaesthetics, University of Oxford, Oxford, Radcliffe Hospital
1 shared publication
Latest Publications
- Open Access
- 4 June 2001
- Published by Springer Nature in BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine
- Vol. 1 (1) , 2
Systematic review of the use of honey as a wound dressing
To investigate topical honey in superficial burns and wounds though a systematic review of randomised controlled trials. Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, reference lists and databases were used to seek randomised controlled trials. Seven randomised trials involved superficial burns, partial thickness burns, moderate to severe burns that included full thickness injury, and infected postoperative wounds. Studies were randomised trials using honey, published papers, with a comparator. Main outcomes were relative benefit and number-needed-to-treat to prevent an outcome relating to wound healing time or infection rate. One study in infected postoperative wounds compared honey with antiseptics plus systemic antibiotics. The number needed to treat with honey for good wound healing compared with antiseptic was 2.9 (95% confidence interval 1.7 to 9.7). Five studies in patients with partial thickness or superficial burns involved less than 40% of the body surface. Comparators were polyurethane film, amniotic membrane, potato peel and silver sulphadiazine. The number needed to treat for seven days with honey to produce one patient with a healed burn was 2.6 (2.1 to 3.4) compared with any other treatment and 2.7 (2.0 to 4.1) compared with potato and amniotic membrane. For some or all outcomes honey was superior to all these treatments. Time for healing was significantly shorter for honey than all these treatments. The quality of studies was low. Confidence in a conclusion that honey is a useful treatment for superficial wounds or burns is low. There is biological plausibility.
- 4 June 2001
- Published by Springer Nature in BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine
- Vol. 1 (1) , 2
Open AccessSystematic review of the use of honey as a wound dressing
To investigate topical honey in superficial burns and wounds though a systematic review of randomised controlled trials. Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, reference lists and databases were used to seek randomised controlled trials. Seven randomised trials involved superficial burns, partial thickness burns, moderate to severe burns that included full thickness injury, and infected postoperative wounds. Studies were randomised trials using honey, published papers, with a comparator. Main outcomes were relative benefit and number-needed-to-treat to prevent an outcome relating to wound healing time or infection rate. One study in infected postoperative wounds compared honey with antiseptics plus systemic antibiotics. The number needed to treat with honey for good wound healing compared with antiseptic was 2.9 (95% confidence interval 1.7 to 9.7). Five studies in patients with partial thickness or superficial burns involved less than 40% of the body surface. Comparators were polyurethane film, amniotic membrane, potato peel and silver sulphadiazine. The number needed to treat for seven days with honey to produce one patient with a healed burn was 2.6 (2.1 to 3.4) compared with any other treatment and 2.7 (2.0 to 4.1) compared with potato and amniotic membrane. For some or all outcomes honey was superior to all these treatments. Time for healing was significantly shorter for honey than all these treatments. The quality of studies was low. Confidence in a conclusion that honey is a useful treatment for superficial wounds or burns is low. There is biological plausibility.
- Open Access
- 10 January 2001
- Published by Springer Nature in BMC Medical Research Methodology
- Vol. 1 (1) , 1
Using evidence from different sources: an example using paracetamol 1000 mg plus codeine 60 mg
Meta-analysis usually restricts the information pooled, for instance using only randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials. This neglects other types of high quality information. This review explores using different information for the combination of paracetamol 1000 mg and codeine 60 mg in acute postoperative pain. Randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of paracetamol 1000 mg and codeine 60 mg had an NNT of 2.2 (95% confidence interval 1.7 to 2.9) for at least 50% pain relief over four to six hours in three trials with 197 patients. Computer simulation of randomised trials demonstrated 92% confidence that the simulated NNT was within ± 0.5 of the underlying value of 2.2 with this number of patients. The result was supported a rational dose-response relationship for different doses of paracetamol and codeine in 17 additional trials with 1,195 patients. Three controlled trials lacking a placebo and with 117 patients treated with of paracetamol 1000 mg and codeine 60 mg had 73% (95%CI 56% to 81%) of patients with at least 50% pain relief, compared with 57% (48% to 66%) in placebo controlled trials. Six trials in acute pain were omitted because of design issues, like the use of different pain measures or multiple dosing regimens. In each paracetamol 1000 mg and codeine 60 mg was shown to be better than placebo or comparators for at least one measure. Different designs of high quality trials can be used to support limited information used in meta-analysis without recourse to low quality trials that might be biased.
- 10 January 2001
- Published by Springer Nature in BMC Medical Research Methodology
- Vol. 1 (1) , 1
Open AccessUsing evidence from different sources: an example using paracetamol 1000 mg plus codeine 60 mg
Meta-analysis usually restricts the information pooled, for instance using only randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials. This neglects other types of high quality information. This review explores using different information for the combination of paracetamol 1000 mg and codeine 60 mg in acute postoperative pain. Randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of paracetamol 1000 mg and codeine 60 mg had an NNT of 2.2 (95% confidence interval 1.7 to 2.9) for at least 50% pain relief over four to six hours in three trials with 197 patients. Computer simulation of randomised trials demonstrated 92% confidence that the simulated NNT was within ± 0.5 of the underlying value of 2.2 with this number of patients. The result was supported a rational dose-response relationship for different doses of paracetamol and codeine in 17 additional trials with 1,195 patients. Three controlled trials lacking a placebo and with 117 patients treated with of paracetamol 1000 mg and codeine 60 mg had 73% (95%CI 56% to 81%) of patients with at least 50% pain relief, compared with 57% (48% to 66%) in placebo controlled trials. Six trials in acute pain were omitted because of design issues, like the use of different pain measures or multiple dosing regimens. In each paracetamol 1000 mg and codeine 60 mg was shown to be better than placebo or comparators for at least one measure. Different designs of high quality trials can be used to support limited information used in meta-analysis without recourse to low quality trials that might be biased.