Evidence map›Paper›PMID 15495122›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2004

Techniques and materials for closure of the abdominal wall in caesarean section.

E R Anderson, S Gates

Open access · greenAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed, 8 pooled it
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 13% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

29 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 88 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. European Hernia Society guidelines on the closure of abdominal wall incisions.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2015
    Guideline
  4. Pooled it
  5. Abdominal surgical incisions for caesarean section.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2013
    Pooled it
  6. Techniques and materials for skin closure in caesarean section.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2012
    Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Methods of delivering the placenta at caesarean section.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2008
    Pooled it
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Obesity at term: What to consider? How to deliver?Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2024
    Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

E R AndersonWellcome Unit, Faculty of Tropical Medicine, Mahidol University, 420/6 Rajvithi Road, Bangkok, 10400, Thailand. landerson@doctors.org.uk
S Gates
Royal Liverpool University Hospital · GBUniversity of Warwick · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere is a variety of techniques for closing the abdominal wall during caesarean section. Some methods may be better in terms of postoperative recovery and other important outcomes.

objectivesTo compare the effects of alternative techniques for closure of the rectus sheath and subcutaneous fat on maternal health and healthcare resource use. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group trials register (September 2003), MEDLINE (1966 to September 2003), EMBASE (1980 to September 2003), CINAHL (1983 to September 2003) and CAB Health (1973 to September 2003), and the reference lists of included articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials making any of the following comparisons: (a) any suturing technique or material used for closure of the rectus sheath versus any other; (b) closure versus non-closure of subcutaneous fat; (c) any suturing technique or material used for closure of the subcutaneous fat versus any other; (d) any type of needle for repair of the abdominal wall in caesarean section versus any other; (e) any other comparison of methods of abdominal wall closure. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Both reviewers evaluated trials for eligibility and methodological quality without consideration of their results. MAIN

resultsSeven studies involving 2056 women were included. The risk of haematoma or seroma was reduced with fat closure compared with non-closure (relative risk (RR) 0.52, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.33 to 0.82), as was the risk of 'wound complication' (haematoma, seroma, wound infection or wound separation) (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.88). No difference in the risk of wound infection alone or other short-term outcomes was found. No long-term outcomes were reported. There was no difference in the risk of wound infection between blunt needles and sharp needles in one small study. No studies were found examining suture techniques or materials for closure of the rectus sheath or subcutaneous fat. REVIEWERS'

conclusionsIMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Closure of the subcutaneous fat may reduce wound complications but it is unclear to what extent these differences affect the well-being and satisfaction of the women concerned. IMPLICATIONS FOR RESEARCH: Further trials are justified to investigate whether the apparent increased risk of haematoma or seroma with non-closure of the subcutaneous fat is real. These should use a broader range of short- and long-term outcomes, and ensure that they are adequately powered to detect clinically important differences. Further research comparing blunt and sharp needles is justified, as are trials evaluating suturing materials and suturing techniques for the rectus sheath.

Indexed as

Cesarean SectionSuture TechniquesAbdominal WallFemaleHumansPregnancy

Identifiers

PMID15495122
PMCPMC9036625
OpenAlexW1930886503

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.