Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24338262›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2013

Wound drainage for caesarean section.

Simon Gates, Elizabeth R Anderson

Registry-linked trialAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
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. It is linked to trial NCT03114332 (Subcutaneous Drains In Lean Women Undergoing Cesarean Section, A Randomized Controlled Trial), which is not on this map. Cited by 14 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
4.1field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
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.

NCT03114332 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2015, after this paper: background citation

Subcutaneous Drains In Lean Women Undergoing Cesarean Section, A Randomized Controlled Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorMenoufia UniversityRan2015 to 2016Enrolled150ConditionsCesarean SectionArmsSubcutaneous Drain
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 59 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Prophylactic abdominal drainage for pancreatic surgery.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Prophylactic abdominal drainage for pancreatic surgery.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018
    Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  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 1 country.

Simon GatesWarwick Clinical Trials Unit, Division of Health Sciences, Warwick Medical School, The University of Warwick, Gibbet Hill Road, Coventry, UK, CV4 7AL.
Elizabeth R Anderson
University of Liverpool · GBUniversity of Warwick · GB

Funding

Department of Health
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSubcutaneous and sub rectus sheath wound drains are sometimes used in women who have undergone caesarean section. The indications for using drains vary by clinician.

objectivesTo compare the effects of using a wound drain with not using a wound drain at caesarean section, and of different types of drain, on maternal health and healthcare resource use. SEARCH

methodsIn November 2013, for this second update, we searched the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register; The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library); Ovid Medline; Ovid Medline - In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations; Ovid Embase; and EBSCO CINAHL. No date, language or publication status limits were applied SELECTION CRITERIA: Studies were included if they allocated women to groups at random and they compared any type of wound drain with no wound drainage, or with any other type of drain, in women undergoing caesarean section. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Trials were evaluated for appropriateness for inclusion and methodological quality without consideration of their results. This was done by two reviewers according to pre-stated eligibility criteria. MAIN

resultsTen trials that recruited 5248 women were included in the review. Meta-analysis found no evidence of a difference in the risk of wound infection, other wound complications, febrile morbidity or pain in women who had wound drains compared with those who did not. There was some evidence from one trial that a subcutaneous drain may increase wound infection compared to a sub-sheath drain (RR 5.42, 95% CI 1.28 to 22.98). No differences in outcomes were found between subcutaneous drainage and subcutaneous suturing in the three trials that made this comparison. AUTHORS'

conclusionsExisting evidence suggests that the routine use of wound drains at caesarean section does not confer any substantial benefit to the women involved. However, neither moderate benefit nor harm are excluded.

Indexed as

Cesarean SectionDrainageFemaleHumansPregnancyRandomized Controlled Trials as Topic

Identifiers

PMID24338262
PMCPMC12206554
OpenAlexW1488094961

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.