Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19826572›Full record

ArticleReviews in obstetrics & gynecology2009

Advances in suture material for obstetric and gynecologic surgery.

James A Greenberg, Rachel M Clark

Registry-linked trialOpen access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Reviews in obstetrics & gynecology, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04658784 (Barbed Suture Versus Non-Barbed Suture for Posterior Colporrhaphy), which is not on this map. Cited by 42 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
42citing papers in PubMed
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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.

NCT04658784 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2020, after this paper: background citation

Barbed Suture Versus Non-Barbed Suture for Posterior Colporrhaphy: A Randomized Controlled Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorWake Forest University Health SciencesRan2020 to 2022Enrolled72ConditionsRectoceleArms2-0 dioxanone, glycolide and trimethylene carbonate, 2-0 polydioxanone
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

42 citing papers in PubMed, 100 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. The PLUS study: efficacy of triclosan coated suture (VicrylPlusMaternal health, neonatology and perinatology · 2025
    Article
  9. Review
  10. Cyanoacrylate Adhesives for Cutaneous Wound Closure.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2024
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

James A GreenbergBrigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School Boston, MA.
Rachel M Clark
Harvard University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Despite millennia of experience with wound closure biomaterials, no study or surgeon has yet identified the perfect suture for all situations. Tissue characteristics, tensile strength, reactivity, absorption rates, and handling properties should be taken into account when selecting a wound closure suture. This review discusses the wound healing process and the biomechanical properties of currently available suture materials to better understand how to choose suture material in obstetrics and gynecology.

Indexed as

Suture, absorption rateSuture, materialSuture, tensile strengthWound healing

Identifiers

PMID19826572
PMCPMC2760901
OpenAlexW40570165

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.