Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23718273›Full record

ReviewSurgical infections2013

A multi-disciplinary review of the potential association between closed-suction drains and surgical site infection.

Alyssa J Reiffel, Philip S Barie, Jason A Spector

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Surgical infections, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 7 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.

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

27 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. 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

3 authors.

Alyssa J ReiffelDepartment of Surgery, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, New York 10065, USA.
Philip S Barie
Jason A Spector

Funding

Multidisciplinary Vascular Surgery Research Training ProgramT32HL083824 · NHLBI · WEILL MEDICAL COLL OF CORNELL UNIV · PI EVANS, TODD R · 2006 to 2010
$791k
NHLBI NIH HHS 5T32 HL083824-05
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDespite the putative advantages conferred by closed-suction drains (CSDs), the widespread utilization of post-operative drains has been questioned due to concerns regarding both efficacy and safety, particularly with respect to the risk of surgical site infection (SSI). Although discipline-specific reports exist delineating risk factors associated with SSI as they relate to the presence of CSDs, there are no broad summary studies to examine this issue in depth.

methodsThe pertinent medical literature exploring the relationship between CSDs and SSI across multiple surgical disciplines was reviewed.

resultsAcross most surgical disciplines, studies to evaluate the risk of SSI associated with routine post-operative CSD have yielded conflicting results. A few studies do suggest an increased risk of SSI associated with drain placement, but are usually associated with open drainage and not the use of CSDs. No studies whatsoever attribute a decrease in the incidence of SSI (including organ/space SSI) to drain placement.

conclusionsUntil additional, rigorous randomized trials are available to address the issue definitively, we recommend judicious use and prompt, timely removal of CSDs. Given that the evidence is scant and weak to suggest that CSD use is associated with increased risk of SSI, there is no justification for the prolongation of antibiotic prophylaxis to "cover" an indwelling drain.

Indexed as

DrainageHumansSuctionSurgical Procedures, OperativeSurgical Wound Infection

Identifiers

PMID23718273
PMCPMC3689179

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.