Purpose:To conduct a scope review of the experimental model described by Walker and
Mason, by identifying and analyzing the details of the method.Methods:The authors searched Pubmed-Medline, Cochrane-Bireme and PEDro databases for
articles published between January 2016 and December 2018, using the
following search queries: burns, burn injuries, models animal, and animal
experimentation. All articles whose authors used Walker and Mason's model -
with or without changes to the method in Wistar rats - were included in this
study.Results:The search identified 45 mentions of Walker and Mason's model; however, after
reading each summary, 20 were excluded (of which 5 due to duplicity). The
inconsistencies observed after the scope review were: water temperature,
length of time of exposure of the experimental model's skin to water, extent
of the burnt area, and the description of the thickness/depth of the
injury.Conclusions:Reproducibility of a scientific method is the basis to prove the veracity of
the observed results. Thus, it is necessary to have a greater number of
publications that adopt a reproducible scientific method, for this review
found inconsistencies in the description of Walker and Mason's model.