Akademik Veri Yönetim Sistemi
BURNS, cilt.50, sa.1, ss.292, 2024 (SCI-Expanded)
Dear editor, I have carefully read the accepted article in print, "Oxygen transmission rates of skin substitutes and graft survival" https://doi.org/10.1016/j.burns.2023.05.01. I would like to direct the following criticisms to the authors:
1. The standardization of the thickness of the dermis equivalent products used in the study is not complete. Namely; since the thickness of the products used is not the same, their oxygen permeability will also be different. If the thicknesses were equal, the results would be more meaningful. Comparing three commercial products in this way, in an inaccurate way, may cause legal problems for manufacturers.
2. A single measurement was made for each product and found 29%, 34% and 27%, respectively. How meaningful is it to accept that these values are correct with a single measurement?
3. Since the title of the article is "Oxygen transmission rates of skin substitutes and graft survival", I tried to find a clinical application and graft survival rate in the article. However, I saw that there is no such data. In this case, why was the phrase "Oxygen transmission rates of graft survival" needed in the title?
4. Why is a product that has come to the fore in single-stage application compared with two other products that stand out with two-stage application?
5. The most important question; What is the evidence that we can also get the result of the in vitro test in clinical practice?
I think that it would be a big mistake to publish this article, which requires answers to these questions and/or corrections, as it is.