Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22513974›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2012

Negative pressure wound therapy for skin grafts and surgical wounds healing by primary intention.

Joan Webster, Paul Scuffham, Karen L Sherriff, Monica Stankiewicz, Wendy P Chaboyer

2 registry-linked trialsAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 36 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

NCT03700086 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2018, after this paper: background citation

Efficacy of a Disposable Negative Wound Pressure Device in Reducing the Incidence of Non-organ Space Surgical Site Infection After Clean-contaminated Pancreatic Resections: a Randomized Controlled Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorAzienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Integrata VeronaRan2018 to 2019Enrolled100ConditionsSurgical Site InfectionArmsDisposable negative wound pressure device (PICO), OPsite post-op visible standard sterile dressing
NCT04039659 naunknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2019, after this paper: background citation

POstoperative Negative-pressure Incision Therapy Following LIver TRANSplant (PONILITRANS Study): a Randomized Controlled Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorHospital Universitario Virgen de la ArrixacaRan2019 to 2021Enrolled110ConditionsLiver Transplant, ComplicationsArmsNegative-pressure wound therapy (PICO)
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

36 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 63 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Donor site morbidity following radial forearm free flap reconstruction with split thickness skin grafts using negative pressure wound therapy.Journal of otolaryngology - head & neck surgery = Le Journal d'oto-rhino-laryngologie et de chirurgie cervico-faciale · 2019
    Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Negative Pressure Wound Therapy in Spinal Surgery.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022
    Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Joan WebsterCentre for Clinical Nursing, Royal Brisbane and Women’s Hospital, Brisbane, Australia. joan_webster@health.qld.gov.au.
Paul Scuffham
Karen L Sherriff
Monica Stankiewicz
Wendy P Chaboyer
Griffith University · AURoyal Brisbane and Women's Hospital · AU

Funding

Department of Health
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIndications for the use of negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) are broadening with a range of systems on the market, including those designed for use on clean, closed incisions and skin grafts. Reviews have concluded that the evidence for the effectiveness of NPWT remains uncertain. However, this is a rapidly evolving therapy. Consequently, a systematic review of the evidence for the effects of NPWT on postoperative wounds expected to heal by primary intention is required.

objectivesTo assess the effects of NPWT on surgical wounds (primary closure or skin grafting) that are expected to heal by primary intention. SEARCH

methodsWe searched the following electronic databases to identify reports of relevant randomised clinical trials: the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (searched 11 November 2011); the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 4); Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 4); Ovid MEDLINE (2005 to October Week 4 2011); Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations 8 November 2011); Ovid EMBASE (2009 to 2011 Week 44); and EBSCO CINAHL (1982 to 04 November 2011). We conducted a separate search to identify economic evaluations. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included trials if they allocated patients at random and compared NPWT with any other type of wound dressing or compared one type of NPWT with a different type of NPWT. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We assessed trials for their appropriateness for inclusion and for their quality. This was done by three review authors working independently, using pre-determined inclusion and quality criteria. MAIN

resultsWe included five eligible trials with a total of 280 participants. Two trials involved skin grafts and three acute wounds. Only one of the five trials reported the proportion of wounds completely healed and in this study all wounds healed. All five studies reported adverse events. In the four trials that compared standard dressings with negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) the adverse event rate was similar between groups (negative pressure 33/86; standard dressing 37/103); risk ratio (RR) 0.97 (95% confidence intervals (CI) 0.33 to 2.89). There was significant heterogeneity for this result, due to the high incidence of fracture blisters in the NPWT group in one trial. One trial (87 participants) compared a commercial negative pressure device VAC® system with a negative pressure system developed in the hospital (GSUC). The adverse event rate was lower in the GSUC group (VAC® 3/42; GSUC 0/45); the RR was 0.13 (95% CI 0.01 to 2.51). Results indicate uncertainty about the true effect of either method on adverse events. The mean cost to supply equipment for VAC® therapy was USD 96.51/day compared to USD 4.22/day for the GSUC therapy (P = 0.01). Labour costs for dressing changes were similar. Pain intensity score was also reported to be lower in the GSUC group when compared with the VAC® group (p = 0.02) AUTHORS'

conclusionsEvidence for the effectiveness of NPWT on complete healing of wounds expected to heal by primary intention remains unclear. Rates of graft loss may be lower when NPWT is used; but evidence to date suggests that hospital-based products are as effective in this area as commercial applications. There are clear cost benefits when non-commercial systems are used to create the negative pressure required for wound therapy, with no reduction in clinical outcome. Pain levels are also rated lower when hospital systems are compared with their commercial counterparts. The high incidence of blisters occurring when NPWT is used following orthopaedic surgery suggests that the therapy should be limited until safety in this population is established. Given the cost and widespread use of NPWT, there is an urgent need for suitably powered, high-quality trials to evaluate the effects of the newer NPWT products that are designed for use on clean, closed surgical incisions. Such trials should focus initially on wounds that may be difficult to heal, such as sternal wounds or surgeries for obese patients.

Indexed as

Skin TransplantationWound HealingBandagesHumansNegative-Pressure Wound TherapyRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSurgical Procedures, Operative

Identifiers

PMID22513974
OpenAlexW4256323326

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.