SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2005
Wound drainage for caesarean section.
Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 33 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prophylactic abdominal drainage for pancreatic surgery.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2016Pooled it
- The First RecordedAesthetic surgery journal. Open forum · 2025Article
- A multi-disciplinary review of the potential association between closed-suction drains and surgical site infection.Surgical infections · 2013Review
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSubcutaneous and sub rectus sheath wound drains are sometimes used in women who have undergone caesarean section. The indications for using drains vary by clinician.
objectivesTo compare the effects of using a wound drain with not using a wound drain at caesarean section, and of different types of drain, on maternal health and healthcare resource use. SEARCH STRATEGY: This review draws on the search strategy developed for the Cochrane Wounds Group as a whole. Electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cinahl and CAB Health), and the reference lists of included articles were also searched up to June 2004 SELECTION CRITERIA: Studies were included if they allocated women to groups at random and they compared any type of wound drain with no wound drainage, or with any other type of drain, in women undergoing caesarean section. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Trials were evaluated for appropriateness for inclusion and methodological quality without consideration of their results. This was done by two reviewers according to pre-stated eligibility criteria. MAIN
resultsSeven trials (1993 women) were included in the review. Meta-analysis found no difference in the risk of wound infection, other wound complications, febrile morbidity or endometritis in women who had wound drains compared with those who did not. There was some evidence that caesarean sections may be about five minutes shorter and that blood loss may be slightly lower when drains were not used. AUTHORS'
conclusionsThere is no evidence in the seven small trials included to suggest that the routine use of wound drains at caesarean section confers any benefit on the women involved. These trials do not answer the question of whether wound drainage is of benefit when haemostasis is not felt to be adequate. Further large trials are justified using blinded outcome assessment to examine the role of different types of wound drain at caesarean section. Comparing the use of drains in women with different degrees of obesity and in women having first or repeat caesareans and intrapartum or prelabour caesarean sections would be of interest. Women's views and experience of drains have not been studied in these trials.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.