Trial reportInternational wound journal2013
Clinical evaluation of gauze-based negative pressure wound therapy in challenging wounds.
Trial report in International wound journal, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 2 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Negative pressure wound therapy for treating foot wounds in people with diabetes mellitus.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018Pooled it
- Negative pressure wound therapy for treating surgical wounds healing by secondary intention.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2015Pooled it
- A solution for complex wounds: the evidence for negative pressure wound therapy with instillation.International wound journal · 2016Review
- Negative pressure wound therapy-assisted dermatotraction for the closure of large open wounds in a patient with non-clostridial gas gangrene.Acute medicine & surgery · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this randomised clinical study was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of gauze-based negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) in patients with challenging wounds. A total of 50 consecutive patients who had wound drainage for more than 5 days, required open wound management and had existence of culture positive infection were included the study. In this study, gauze-based NPWT was compared with conventional dressing therapy in the treatment of patients with difficult-to-heal wounds. The patients were randomly divided into two groups. Group I (n = 25) was followed by conventional antiseptic (polyhexanide solution) dressings, and group II (n = 25) was treated with saline-soaked antibacterial gauze-based NPWT. The wounds' sizes, number of debridement, bacteriology and recurrence were compared between group I and group II. The mean age of the patients was 59·50 years (range 23-97). In group I, average wound sizes of pre- and post-treatment periods were 50·60 ± 55·35 and 42·50 ± 47·92 cm(2), respectively (P < 0·001). Average duration of treatment was 25·52 ± 16·99 days, and average wound size reduction following the treatment was 19·99% in this group. In group II, the wounds displayed considerable shrinkage, accelerated granulation tissue formation, decreased and cleared away exudate. The average wound sizes in the pre- and post-treatment periods were 98·44 ± 100·88 and 72·08 ± 75·78 cm(2) , respectively (P < 0·001). Average duration of treatment was 11·96 ± 2·48 days, and average wound size reduction following the treatment was 32·34%. The patients treated with antibacterial gauze-based NPWT had a significantly reduced recurrence (2 wounds versus 14 wounds, P = 0·001), and increased number of the culture-negative cases (22 wounds versus 16 wounds, P < 0·047) in a follow-up period of 12 months. There was a statistically significant difference between two groups in all measurements. As a result, we can say that the gauze-based NPWT is a safe and effective method in the treatment of challenging infective wounds when compared with conventional wound management.
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.