Level D· Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studiesNarrative ReviewEurope PMCOpen access

Burns in Early Childhood: Age-Specific Causes, Risks, Management, and Implications-A Narrative Review

Pelizzo G., Calcaterra V., Canonica CPM., Magenes VC., Marinaro M., Durante E.

Narrative Review on Burns, published in Children (Basel) (2025) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.

Open my reading list
Level D· Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studiesEvidence level of this study

Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.

  • Level A · Stronger Clinical Evidence
  • Level B · Emerging clinical evidence with positive signals
  • Level C · Early human research exploring benefits
  • Level D · Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studies
  • Emerging · Emerging topic under active research
Read the A–D evidence level guide

This page is generated from the PubMed record. The Thai description is an automated summary of bibliographic fields and the abstract, not a full translation, and is not medical advice.

Study type
Narrative Review
Journal
Children (Basel) (2025)
Reported sample size
—
Source database
Europe PMC
PMID
41300542
PMCID
PMC12651006
DOI
10.3390/children12111424
Citations
1

Abstract (original English)

Burn injuries represent a significant global burden, with children under the age of five among the most vulnerable groups. This narrative review will explore the main causes of burns in early childhood (under 6 years of age), the associated risks, current treatment approaches, and the long-term implications of these injuries. It will also highlight areas where further research is needed to improve prevention and management strategies for burns in this vulnerable population. Results showed that burns in children under six years old represent a significant clinical and preventive challenge, with physical, psychological, and social implications. Research has identified common causes, particularly scalds from hot liquids, while advancing innovative treatments such as bioengineered skin substitutes, virtual reality, and telemedicine. Preventive interventions at the household and community levels have also proven effective. However, major limitations remain: studies often lack age-specific focus, rely on retrospective data, underrepresent low-resource settings, and lack standardized protocols. To improve outcomes, future research must adopt a more targeted, multidisciplinary approach and address long-term physical and psychological effects to ensure comprehensive, age-appropriate care.

What this study does not prove

  • • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.
  • • This is a narrative review: it collects no new patient data and does not systematically appraise evidence quality.

Evidence level

Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.

How we grade evidence

Browse all related research

Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.

Related research