Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17687554›Full record

SynthesisInternational orthopaedics2008

Closed suction surgical wound drainage after hip fracture surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

R Clifton, S Haleem, A McKee, M J Parker

Open access · bronzeAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in International orthopaedics, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 36% 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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 39 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Wound drainage for lower limb arterial surgery.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2016
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Open fractures: evidence-based best practices.OTA international : the open access journal of orthopaedic trauma · 2024
    Article
  5. What Systematic Reviews Exist for the Effectiveness of Orthopaedic Interventions.Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Global research & reviews · 2019
    Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. [Significance of drains in surgery].Der Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen · 2011
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

R CliftonDepartment of Orthopaedics and Trauma, Peterborough District Hospital, Trauma & Orthopaedic Surgery, Thorpe Road, Peterborough, Cambridgeshire, PE3 6DA, UK. mjparker@doctors.org.uk
S Haleem
A McKee
M J Parker
Peterborough City Hospital · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There is still debate over the use of drains following hip fracture surgery. We have performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature for randomised trials that related to the use of closed suction drains following hip fracture surgery. Six studies involving 664 patients were identified. There was no statistically significant difference in the occurrence of wound healing complications, re-operations or requirement for blood transfusion between drained and un-drained wounds. All other outcomes reported failed to show any benefit from the use of drains. Further randomised trials are required and until they have been undertaken the efficacy of closed surgical drainage systems in hip fracture surgery is unknown.

Indexed as

Hip FracturesHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSuctionSurgical Wound InfectionWound Healing

Identifiers

PMID17687554
PMCPMC2898962
OpenAlexW2014179479

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.