A Review of Honey Treatment for Bacterial Wound Infections: Report

This report critically reviews five recent articles to assess the effectiveness of honey in treating bacterial wound infections. The study employs a systematic approach, examining four systematic reviews and one randomized control trial (RCT) to answer the research question: 'How effective is honey at treating bacterial wound infections?' The reviewed articles, published within the last seven years, utilize search engines and databases like Google Scholar, PubMed, MEDLINE, and NCBI, with keywords such as 'wound,' 'honey,' 'wound healing,' and 'wound care.' The analysis includes studies on various aspects, such as the use of honey in wilderness settings, diabetic foot ulcers, and burns. The report evaluates the methodological rigor, potential biases, and ethical considerations of each study, offering recommendations based on the evidence presented. The findings highlight the potential of honey as a wound dressing, while also acknowledging the need for caution in implementation and further research to address gaps in the existing literature.

Running head: Honey Treatment 1
The effectiveness of Honey in the Treatment of Bacterial Wound Infections
By:
Student ID:
Course No:
Tutor:
Date:

Honey Treatment 2
Introduction
A wound is an interruption of the continuity of a tissue structure. Different forms of injuries
either caused by accident or surgery, results in tissue destruction, interference with blood
vessels, extravasation of blood components and hypoxia. Wounds can, therefore, occur at any
time be it at home, at work or in any other place. This requires that an immediate response is
made to prevent further microbial infection and bleeding. Honey has historically been used
for wound dressing in various settings. Honey is a natural substance produced from nectar
collected and changed by a variety of honeybees, especially the Apis mellifera. For instance,
one of the old text on surgery, Edwin Smith papyrus in the 2200 BC shows the healing of
head wound using a combination of oil and honey (Pećanac, Janjić, Komarčević, Pajić,
Dobanovački, & Skeledžija-Mišković, 2013). Ancient records from Egypt, Greece, and
Hippocrates among others report on the healing property of honey (Alves, Medeiros,
Albuquerque, & Rosa, 2013). Modern studies have reported on the clinical properties of
honey in the prevention of bacterial infections (Khalil, Khan, Ahmad, Khan, Khan, & Khan,
2013), and in the treatment of venous ulcers (Vandamme, Heyneman, Hoeksema, Verbelen,
& Monstrey, 2013).
Additionally, studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of honey in treating fatal wounds,
especially regarding the size and hygiene using bandages coated with honey (Yaghoobi &
Kazerouni, 2013). Likewise, Boateng and Catanzano (2015) have shown that honey
accelerates the rate of healing when applied in pressure wounds. The authors further confirm
that honey is vital in minimizing the foul odors that come from injuries; as an aspect that can
result in social isolation. The objective of this paper is to critically review five latest articles
that address the effectiveness of honey in dressing wounds with a view of providing most
recent information on the same and possible recommendations. It is expected that the review

Honey Treatment 3
will answer the research question which is How effective is honey at treating bacterial wound
infections?
Methods
Search strategy
The researcher used search engines and databases such as Google Scholar, PubMed,
MEDLINE, and NCBI to search for relevant articles to be included in the study. The
keywords used include wound, honey, wound healing and wound care. The keywords were
searched in combination on the multiple databases under title, abstract or all fields. The
search was restricted to the articles published in English only and within the last seven years.
The researcher did not contact the authors for original data. The study was carried out
between October and November 2018. A total of 25 articles were obtained from the databases
after identification, screening and quality check. The twenty-five articles were then evaluated
and ten of them excluded due to duplication. Out of the fifteen remaining studies, ten of them
had no free access, and thus the researcher remained with five articles that fully met the
inclusion criteria. These comprised of four systematic reviews and one randomized control
trial (RCT). The articles were critiqued using the CASP checklist for systematic reviews and
RCTs.
Results
Yaghoobi and Kazerouni (2013) conducted a review of both RCTs and articles to ascertain
the evidence for the clinical use of honey in the healing of the wound. The adoption of a
systematic review is most appropriate because it enables the researcher to bring together
research and aid to ascertain commonalities and variations (Page et al., 2016). This is
significant in comprehensively answering the research question and in identifying research
gaps and making recommendations for future research.

Honey Treatment 4
The study used a comparator and the review undertaken by three reviewers. This minimized
the possibility of evidence selection bias which could be as a result of missed articles by
either of the reviewers (Drucker Fleming, & Chan, 2016). Additionally, the inclusion of only
published articles will bias the systematic review of positive outcomes because the
unpublished articles are statistically non-significant (Dwan, Gamble, Williamson, &
Kirkham, 2013).
The study doesn’t have a confounding factor since only honey is reviewed concerning wound
healing. The review doesn’t also highlight any possible ethical issues considered while
selecting articles to be included in the study. This neglect compromises the quality of the
research since it included RCTs that dealt with humans and animals. Using grade
recommendations of FORM, the review can be graded to be of group C (Schünemann,
Brożek, Guyatt, & Oxman, 2013). This is because the study provides evidence for its
conclusion, however, caution has to be exercised in implementation because the authors
haven’t disclosed any inclusion and exclusion criteria, ethical issues and any possibility of
biases.
Stewart, McGrane, and Wedmore (2014) conducted a systematic review of the use of honey
in treating wounds in wilderness settings. The design is most appropriate for the study since it
is transparent in the manner in which the conclusions are made by avoiding the
misrepresentation of the knowledge base because each article is assessed and its quality and
application ascertained (Page et al., 2016). This ensures that the research question of
determining whether honey can be an effective improvised treatment in pre-hospital settings
is adequately answered.
The study has disclosed the search strategy including the databases and keywords. This
ensures that source and selection biases are minimized because the selection of articles for

Honey Treatment 5
review follows a specific protocol. Additionally, the search in a variety of databases also
ensured that database bias was reduced and the yield of appropriate research is optimized
(Drucker, Fleming, & Chan, 2016).
The authors do not expressly indicate any declarations for ethical considerations, but since
it’s a review, it can be assumed that the studies reviewed had obtained original consent and
therefore the systematic review is ethical. However, it is not always the case in the context of
informed consent since it may not be valid as at the time of the systematic review (Connelly,
2014). On the other hand, the authors haven’t explicitly indicated whether there were
potential conflicts of interest or funding. Based on the FORM grading protocol, the article
can be graded as B because the presented evidence can be relied upon in most cases. This is
because the authors have attempted to minimize bias which is prone to systematic studies.
Imran, Hussain, and Baig (2015) conducted an RCT of the effect of honey dressing as an
intervention for diabetic foot ulcer in comparison with standard saline dressing. This
approach was the most appropriate in ascertaining the effectiveness of honey in the treatment
of diabetic foot ulcer because it enables the direct comparison of one medication with another
to determine superiority. Furthermore, randomization minimizes selection and allocation bias
thus improving the quality of the research (Kahan, Rehal, & Cro, 2015). The RCT design,
therefore, is more effective in responding to the research question of ascertaining the efficacy
of honey on diabetic foot ulcer in comparison with usual saline dressing.
The allocation of the patients to the two study groups was based on randomized numbers
generated by a computer, and the researchers could only select the patients for eligibility
criteria. This ensured that allocation bias was minimized (Kumar & Yale, 2016).
Additionally, the baseline features of all the subjects have been displayed in a table and the
treatment groups reasonably balanced.

Honey Treatment 6
Confounding has been presented in the study by independently separating the outcomes of
the effects of honey and saline intervention on wound treatment (Mansournia, Higgins,
Sterne, & Hernán, 2017). The controlling of the confounding factor (saline treatment)
reduced bias in the estimated effect of honey treatment. This ensured that there was an
observed difference between the study groups with actual variations.
Informed consent was obtained from the prospective participants in writing, and institutional
review boards and ethical committees approved the study protocol. This improves the
reliability and validity of the study because a standardized protocol was used in the study
besides the willful participation of the participants which assures accuracy in the information
provided and the inferences made (Noble & Smith, 2015). The research can be graded as A
(excellent) using FORM approach because the body of evidence is reliable for decision
making and several attempts have been made to minimize all possible potential bias in
addition to the ethical approvals from two institutes and ethical committees.
Al-Waili, Salom, and Al-Ghamdi (2011) conducted a review of relevant data on the
effectiveness of natural honey in treating burns, wounds, and ulcers. This approach is suitable
for the study topic because it acknowledges an extensive body of present research and aims at
assessing the outcomes from all the included articles. However, the study relies only on
published research which is readily available thus making the findings unreliable.
Furthermore, the use of published articles only to the exclusion of unpublished literature is
likely to lead to misrepresentation because it doesn’t factor in the outcomes from all the
existing studies. This, therefore, becomes a challenge in comprehensively answering the
research question of determining the effectiveness of honey in the treatment of wounds burns
and ulcers.

Honey Treatment 7
The authors do not disclose any specific criteria for the inclusion and exclusion of the articles
included in the study. Additionally, there is no indication of the particular protocol followed
in the appraisal of the reviews. This creates high chances of evidence selection bias.
Furthermore, the authors have not indicated the specific data sources such as databases
leading to the possibility of database bias, publication bias and source selection bias (Jansen,
2017).
The study doesn’t disclose any methodology used in carrying out the review, and therefore
there is the possibility of including unethical studies in the analysis. Moreover, the study
doesn’t have a note on contact and funding information and any declaration on conflict of
interest as generally recommended for reviews in the Cochrane protocol (Deeks, Wisniewski,
& Davenport, 2013). According to Mertz, Kahrass, and Strech (2016) reviews are likely to
become unethical due to the desire to conduct an exhaustive search for literature. The
investigation by Al-Waili et al. (2011) belongs to the D grade because the literature evidence
is weak and since there are no specific measures to minimize bias and not protocol exists on
how the review was conducted. Therefore, the recommendation has to be cautiously
implemented.
A study was conducted by Minden-Birkenmaier, and Bowlin (2018) to provide current
literature on the ability of honey to heal wounds based on tissue regeneration. This approach
was most suitable for the review because it allows a researcher to undertake an exhaustive
search to find optimal relevant literature to support the derived conclusion. This reduces bias
because the findings are not likely to be overly influenced by the research that is readily
available. On the other hand, the approach is expected to have a bias towards good results
because it is more often the case that adverse epidemiological outcomes are suppressed and
not published (Jansen, 2017). This, therefore, implies that the approach is relatively effective

Honey Treatment 8
in responding to the research question of assessing the present state of the use of honey in the
healing of wounds and tissue engineering.
The review has not shown rigor in minimizing bias which is a general characteristic of
systematic reviews. For instance, the study has neither shown any inclusion or exclusion
criteria nor the search strategy such as the databases from which the articles were retrieved.
This leaves room for multiple biases. There is potential for bias in the review design because
no protocol is stated to have been followed and this allows preconceived ideas of the
researcher to determine the manner in which the review is to be carried out (Jansen, 2017).
The non-disclosure of any inclusion and exclusion criteria in the review raises the question of
ethical consideration of the study. This is because it is most likely that insufficient reporting
of ethical considerations in the original studies might be reflected in the current review
(Mertz, Kahrass, & Strech, 2016). Additionally, there is no indication that the original authors
were contacted for additional information; an aspect which could also have enabled the
authors to give informed consent to the inclusion of his or her study in the systematic review.
Based on the above evaluation the review is average and can be graded as C using the FORM
guidance of grading evidence-based clinical studies.
Discussion
There is a consensus of the effectiveness of honey in the treatment and dressing of wounds
across all the reviewed studies. The reviewed articles have shown that honey has more
significant effects on the treatment of acute wounds in comparison with conventional
medications (Yaghoobi, & Kazerouni, 2013). Honey has wound healing properties such as
triggering tissue growth, improved epithelialization, and reduced development of scars after
the wound has healed (Oryan, Alemzadeh, & Moshiri, 2016). These properties have attribute
to the acidity of honey, osmotic influence, the presence of hydrogen peroxide, and dietary

Honey Treatment 9
and antioxidant contents as result honey reduces the level of prostaglandin and increase levels
of nitric oxide and final products (Yaghoobi, & Kazerouni, 2013; Al-Waili, Salom, & Al-
Ghamdi, 2011). All these features justify the therapeutic and biological properties of honey,
more so as an antibacterial agent or wound healer. The highest quality studies amongst the
five reviewed article are the RCT conducted by Imran, Hussain, and Baig (2015) and the
systematic review by Stewart, McGrane, and Wedmore (2014). The RCT by Imran was of the
highest quality when graded using the FORM guideline because the body of evidence is
reliable for decision making and several attempts have been made to minimize all possible
potential bias in addition to the ethical approvals from two institutes and ethical committees.
Furthermore, RCTs have been found to be most effective in epidemiological studies (Porzsolt
et al., 2015). The systematic review by Stewart was also of high quality because the presented
evidence can be relied upon in most cases. This is because the authors have attempted to
minimize bias which is prone to systematic studies.
The findings in the review have the potential to be implemented in policies and practice due
to several reasons. The studies are the most recent and therefore are likely to reflect the
current state of wound infection and treatment in the society. Thus, the findings with regard
to the effectiveness of honey in wound healing can be implemented in policy and practice
because they will reflect the present condition. Secondly, the studies which include
systematic reviews and RCT have considered the findings of multiple researchers carried out
in diverse geographical settings and focusing on different types of wounds and the
effectiveness of honey in their treatment. This increases generalizability and therefore have
the potential to be implemented in designing policies and practices of wound treatment in
different geographical locations. However, there is a need for further research to address the
gaps identified in the literature. There is a need for more RCTs with significant statistical

Honey Treatment 10
power comparing wound healing properties of different types of honey. However, this study
is not without limitations. The RCT control reviewed did not have proper blinding, thus
increasing the risk of personal bias and poor validity. Additionally, it is likely that the
systematic reviews used in this study had inconsistency and personal bias, therefore the
conclusions of this review must be implemented with caution.
Conclusion
There exists sufficient evidence proposing the use of hone in the management of both critical
and moderate wounds. Of all the most archaic of wound treatments, honey has been re-
examined about its viability to manage different forms of wounds. The properties of honey
include antibacterial, antiviral, anti-inflammatory and antioxidant thus making it more
effective in wound treatment and dressing more than conventional medications.

Honey Treatment 11
References
Alves, R. R. N., Medeiros, M. F. T., Albuquerque, U. P., & Rosa, I. L. (2013). From past to
present: medicinal animals in a historical perspective. In Animals in traditional folk
medicine(pp. 11-23). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
Al-Waili, N., Salom, K., & Al-Ghamdi, A. A. (2011). Honey for wound healing, ulcers, and
burns; data supporting its use in clinical practice. The scientific world journal, 11,
766-787. Retrieved from
file:///C:/Users/Admin/Documents/WORK/2018%20jobs/November/866301%20epid
emiology/Re-allocated/526901.pdf
Boateng, J., & Catanzano, O. (2015). Advanced therapeutic dressings for effective wound
healing—a review. Journal of pharmaceutical sciences, 104(11), 3653-3680.
Connelly, L. M. (2014). Ethical considerations in research studies. Medsurg Nursing, 23(1),
54.
Deeks, J. J., Wisniewski, S., & Davenport, C. (2013). Chapter 4: guide to the contents of a
Cochrane Diagnostic Test Accuracy Protocol. Cochrane handbook for systematic
reviews of diagnostic test accuracy version, 1(0).
Drucker, A. M., Fleming, P., & Chan, A. W. (2016). Research techniques made simple:
assessing risk of bias in systematic reviews. Journal of Investigative
Dermatology, 136(11), e109-e114.
Dwan, K., Gamble, C., Williamson, P. R., & Kirkham, J. J. (2013). Systematic review of the

Honey Treatment 12
empirical evidence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias—an updated
review. PloS one, 8(7), e66844.
Imran, M., Hussain, M. B., & Baig, M. (2015). A randomized, controlled clinical trial of
honey-impregnated dressing for treating diabetic foot ulcer. J Coll Physicians Surg
Pak, 25(10), 721-725. Retrieved from
file:///C:/Users/Admin/Documents/WORK/2018%20jobs/November/866301%20epid
emiology/Re-allocated/RCTHoneydressingintreatingdiabeticfoot.pdfPublished.pdf
Jansen, S. H. G. (2017). Bias within systematic and non-systematic literature reviews: the
case of the Balanced Scorecard (Master's thesis, University of Twente).
Kahan, B. C., Rehal, S., & Cro, S. (2015). Risk of selection bias in randomised
trials. Trials, 16, 405. doi:10.1186/s13063-015-0920-x
Khalil, A. T., Khan, I., Ahmad, K., Khan, Y. A., Khan, M., & Khan, M. J. (2013). Synergistic
antibacterial effect of honey and Herba Ocimi Basilici against some bacterial
pathogens. Journal of traditional chinese medicine, 33(6), 810-814.
Kumar, C. S., & Yale, S. S. (2016). Identifying and Eliminating Bias in Interventional
Research Studies–A Quality Indicator. International journal of contemporary medical
research, 3 (6).
Mansournia, M. A., Higgins, J. P., Sterne, J. A., & Hernán, M. A. (2017). Biases in
randomized trials: a conversation between trialists and epidemiologists. Epidemiology
(Cambridge, Mass.), 28(1), 54.
Mertz, M., Kahrass, H., & Strech, D. (2016). Current state of ethics literature synthesis: a

Honey Treatment 13
systematic review of reviews. BMC medicine, 14(1), 152.
Minden-Birkenmaier, B., & Bowlin, G. (2018). Honey-based templates in wound healing and
tissue engineering. Bioengineering, 5(2), 46. Retrieved from
file:///C:/Users/Admin/Documents/WORK/2018%20jobs/November/866301%20epid
emiology/Re-allocated/bioengineering-05-00046.pdf
Noble, H., & Smith, J. (2015). Issues of validity and reliability in qualitative
research. Evidence-Based Nursing, ebnurs-2015.
Oryan, A., Alemzadeh, E., & Moshiri, A. (2016). Biological properties and therapeutic
activities of honey in wound healing: a narrative review and meta-analysis. Journal of
tissue viability, 25(2), 98-118.
Page, M. J., Shamseer, L., Altman, D. G., Tetzlaff, J., Sampson, M., Tricco, A. C., Catalá-
López, F., Li, L., Reid, E. K., Sarkis-Onofre, R., … Moher, D. (2016). Epidemiology
and Reporting Characteristics of Systematic Reviews of Biomedical Research: A
Cross-Sectional Study. PLoS medicine, 13(5), e1002028.
doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1002028
Pećanac, M., Janjić, Z., Komarčević, A., Pajić, M., Dobanovački, D., & Skeledžija-Mišković,
S. (2013). Burns treatment in ancient times. Medicinski pregled, 66(5-6), 263-267.
Porzsolt, F., Rocha, N. G., Toledo-Arruda, A. C., Thomaz, T. G., Moraes, C., Bessa-Guerra,
T. R., Leão, M., Migowski, A., Araujo da Silva, A. R., … Weiss, C. (2015). Efficacy
and effectiveness trials have different goals, use different tools, and generate different
messages. Pragmatic and observational research, 6, 47-54. doi:10.2147/POR.S89946

Honey Treatment 14
Schünemann, H., Brożek, J., Guyatt, G., & Oxman, A. (2013). Handbook for grading the
quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations using the GRADE
approach. Updated October, 2013.
Stewart, J. A., McGrane, O. L., & Wedmore, I. S. (2014). Wound care in the wilderness: is
there evidence for honey?. Wilderness & environmental medicine, 25(1), 103-
110.Retrieved from
file:///C:/Users/Admin/Documents/WORK/2018%20jobs/November/866301%20epid
emiology/Re-allocated/PIIS1080603213002470.pdf
Vandamme, L., Heyneman, A., Hoeksema, H. E. N. D. R. I. K., Verbelen, J. O. Z. E. F., &
Monstrey, S. (2013). Honey in modern wound care: a systematic
review. Burns, 39(8), 1514-1525.
Yaghoobi, R., & Kazerouni, A. (2013). Evidence for clinical use of honey in wound healing
as an anti-bacterial, anti-inflammatory anti-oxidant and anti-viral agent: A
review. Jundishapur journal of natural pharmaceutical products, 8(3), 100. Retrieved
from
file:///C:/Users/Admin/Documents/WORK/2018%20jobs/November/866301%20epid
emiology/Re-allocated/jjnpp-08-100.pdf