SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2011
Debridement for surgical wounds.
Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 3 of them syntheses 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 30 citations in OpenAlex.
- Debridement for surgical wounds.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024Pooled it
- Interventions for treating leg ulcers in people with sickle cell disease.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021Pooled it
- Interventions for treating leg ulcers in people with sickle cell disease.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2014Pooled it
- Defensins ofInternational journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Article
- Effectiveness of Chronic Wound Debridement with the Use of Larvae ofJournal of clinical medicine · 2019Review
- Patients' perceptions and experiences of living with a surgical wound healing by secondary intention: A qualitative study.International journal of nursing studies · 2018Article
- The cost of wound debridement: a Canadian perspective.International wound journal · 2015Article
- Results of vacuum assisted wound closure application.The Indian journal of surgery · 2013Article
- Fluorescence imaging in surgery.IEEE reviews in biomedical engineering · 2013Review
- Extending the TIME concept: what have we learned in the past 10 years?(*).International wound journal · 2012Review
- Use of Cultivated Epidermal Allograft in Chronic Wounds: A Novel Therapeutic Alternative.Journal of cutaneous and aesthetic surgeryArticle
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
- Update of
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSurgical wounds that become infected are often debrided because clinicians believe that removal of this necrotic or infected tissue will expedite wound healing. There are numerous methods available but no consensus on which one is most effective for surgical wounds.
objectivesTo determine the effect of different methods of debridement on the rate of debridement and healing of surgical wounds. SEARCH STRATEGY: For this second update we searched the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (searched 13 April 2011); the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 1); Ovid MEDLINE (2007 to March Week 5 2011); Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, April 11, 2011); Ovid EMBASE (2007 to 2011 Week 14); and EBSCO CINAHL (2007 to 8 April 2011). SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with outcomes including at least one of the following: time to complete debridement or time to complete healing. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently reviewed the abstracts and titles obtained from the search, extracted data independently using a standardised extraction sheet and independently assessed methodological quality. One review author was involved in all stages of the data collection and extraction process, thus ensuring continuity. MAIN
resultsFive RCTs (159 participants) were eligible for inclusion; all compared treatments for infected surgical wounds and reported time required to achieve a clean wound bed (complete debridement). One trial compared an enzymatic agent (streptokinase/streptodornase) with saline-soaked dressings. Four trials compared the effectiveness of dextranomer beads or paste with other products (different comparator in each trial) to achieve complete debridement. Meta-analysis was not possible due to the unique comparisons within each trial. One trial reported that dextranomer achieved a clean wound bed significantly more quickly than Eusol, and one trial comparing enzymatic debridement with saline-soaked dressings reported that the enzyme-treated wounds were cleaned more quickly. However, methodological quality was poor in these two trials. AUTHORS'
conclusionsThere is a lack of large, high-quality published RCTs evaluating debridement per se, or comparing different methods of debridement for surgical wounds, to guide clinical decision-making.
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.