Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20830460›Full record

ReviewDer Anaesthesist2010

[Postoperative wound infections. Pathophysiology, risk factors and preventive concepts].

T Hachenberg, M Sentürk, O Jannasch, H Lippert

Abstract readEnglish AbstractReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Der Anaesthesist, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
3.0field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 27 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Biocompatibility of magnesium implants in primary human reaming debris-derived cells stem cells in vitro.Journal of orthopaedics and traumatology : official journal of the Italian Society of Orthopaedics and Traumatology · 2016
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. 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 2 institutions in 1 country.

T HachenbergKlinik für Anaesthesiologie und Intensivtherapie, Universitätsklinikum A.ö.R., Otto-von-Guericke-Universität, Leipziger Strasse 44, 39120 Magdeburg. Thomas.Hachenberg@med.ovgu.de
M Sentürk
O Jannasch
H Lippert
Otto-von-Guericke University Magdeburg · DEKlinikum Magdeburg · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Postoperative wound infections are the third most common type of nosocomial infection in German emergency hospitals after pneumonia and urinary infections. They are associated with increased morbidity and mortality, prolonged hospital stay and increased costs. The most important risk factors include the microbiological state of the skin surrounding the incision, delayed or premature prophylaxis with antibiotics, duration of surgery, emergency surgery, poorly controlled diabetes mellitus, malignant disease, smoking and advanced age. Anesthesiological measures to decrease the incidence of wound infections are maintaining normothermia, strict indications for allogenic blood transfusions and timely prophylaxis with antibiotics. Blood glucose concentrations should be kept in the range of 8.3-10 mmol/l (150-180 mg/dl) as lower values are associated with increased complications. Intraoperative and postoperative hyperoxia with 80% O(2) has not been shown to effectively decrease wound infections. The application of local anesthetics into the surgical wound in clinically relevant doses for postoperative analgesia does not impair wound healing.

Indexed as

Antibiotic ProphylaxisBlood GlucoseBlood TransfusionBody TemperatureFluid TherapyGermanyHumansOxygen Inhalation TherapyRisk FactorsSurgical Wound InfectionBlood Glucose

Identifiers

PMID20830460
OpenAlexW2413909490

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.