Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23440806›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2013

Use of plastic adhesive drapes during surgery for preventing surgical site infection.

Joan Webster, Abdullah Alghamdi

Open access · bronzeAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
–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.

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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 45 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Infection control in colon surgery.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2016
    Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 2 institutions in 3 countries.

Joan WebsterCentre for Clinical Nursing, Royal Brisbane andWomen’s Hospital, Brisbane, Australia. joan_webster@health.qld.gov.au.
Abdullah Alghamdi
University of Queensland · AUUniversity of Toronto · CA

Funding

Department of Health
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSurgical site infection has been estimated to occur in about 15% of clean surgery and 30% of contaminated surgery cases. Using plastic adhesive drapes to protect the wound from organisms that may be present on the surrounding skin during surgery is one strategy used to prevent surgical site infection. Results from non-randomised studies have produced conflicting results about the efficacy of this approach, but no systematic review has been conducted to date to guide clinical practice.

objectivesTo assess the effect of adhesive drapes used during surgery on surgical site infection, cost, mortality and morbidity. SEARCH

methodsFor this third update we searched the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (searched 19 July 2012); the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 7); Ovid MEDLINE (1946 to July Week 2, 2012); Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, July 18, 2012); Ovid EMBASE (1974 to Week 28, 2012); and EBSCO CINAHL (1982 to July 6, 2012). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing any plastic adhesive drape with no plastic adhesive drape, used alone or in combination with woven (material) drapes or disposable (paper) drapes, in patients undergoing any type of surgery. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected and assessed studies for trial quality and both independently extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information. MAIN

resultsWe identified no new studies for this third update. The review includes five studies involving 3082 participants comparing plastic adhesive drapes with no drapes and two studies involving 1113 participants comparing iodine-impregnated adhesive drapes with no drapes. A significantly higher proportion of patients in the adhesive drape group developed a surgical site infection when compared with no drapes (risk ratio (RR) 1.23, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.02 to 1.48, P = 0.03). Iodine-impregnated adhesive drapes had no effect on the surgical site infection rate (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.06 to 1.66, P = 0.89). Length of hospital stay was similar in the adhesive drape and non-adhesive drape groups. AUTHORS'

conclusionsThere was no evidence from the seven trials that plastic adhesive drapes reduce surgical site infection rates, and some evidence that they increase infection rates. Further trials may be justified, using blinded outcome assessment to examine the effect of adhesive drapes on surgical site infection, based on different wound classifications.

Indexed as

AdhesivesPlasticsSurgical DrapesHumansIodineLength of StayRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSurgical Wound InfectionAdhesivesIodinePlastics

Identifiers

PMID23440806
OpenAlexW4234032070

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.