ArticlePloS one2014
The cost-effectiveness of wound-edge protection devices compared to standard care in reducing surgical site infection after laparotomy: an economic evaluation alongside the ROSSINI trial.
Article in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 5 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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Effect of wound protectors in reducing the incidence of surgical site wound infection in lower gastrointestinal surgery: A meta-analysis.International wound journal · 2023Pooled it
- The Japan Society for Surgical Infection: guidelines for the prevention, detection, and management of gastroenterological surgical site infection, 2018.Surgery today · 2021Pooled it
- Surgical site infection and costs in low- and middle-income countries: A systematic review of the economic burden.PloS one · 2020Pooled it
- Wound protectors in reducing surgical site infections in lower gastrointestinal surgery: an updated meta-analysis.Surgical endoscopy · 2018Pooled it
- A systematic review of clinical effectiveness of wound edge protector devices in reducing surgical site infections in patients undergoing abdominal surgery.Updates in surgery · 2017Pooled it
- A Cost-Utility Analysis of Surgical Site Infection Prevention: Broadening the Scope.Applied health economics and health policy · 2026Article
- Methods and evaluation metrics for reducing material waste in the operating room: a scoping review.Surgery · 2023Article
- Article
- Intraoperative surgical site infection control and prevention: a position paper and future addendum to WSES intra-abdominal infections guidelines.World journal of emergency surgery : WJES · 2020Review
- The role of saline irrigation prior to wound closure in the reduction of surgical site infection: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.Systematic reviews · 2018Article
- Systematic review of the cost-effectiveness of preoperative antibiotic prophylaxis in reducing surgical-site infection.BJS open · 2018Review
- A cost-utility analysis of small bite sutures versus large bite sutures in the closure of midline laparotomies in the United Kingdom National Health Service.ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR · 2018Article
- Cohort profile: the Welsh Geriatric Registrar-Led Research Network (WeGeN): rationale, design and description.BMJ open · 2017Article
- The DISINFECT Initiative: Decreasing the Incidence of Surgical INFECTions in Gynecologic Oncology.Annals of surgical oncology · 2017Article
- Magnetic resonance imaging has no role in diagnosing the origin of pain in patients with overwhelmingly painful inguinal hernia.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundWound-edge protection devices (WEPDs) have been used in surgery for more than 40 years to reduce surgical site infection (SSI). No economic evaluation of WEPDs against any comparator has ever been conducted. The aim of the paper was to assess whether WEPDs are cost-effective in reducing SSI compared to standard care alone in the United Kingdom. METHODS AND
findingsAn economic evaluation was conducted alongside the ROSSINI trial. The study perspective was that of the UK National Health Service and the time horizon was 30 days post-operatively. The study was conducted in 21 UK hospitals. 760 patients undergoing laparotomy were randomised to either WEPD or standard care and 735 were included in the primary analysis. The main economic outcome was cost-effectiveness based on incremental cost (£) per quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained. Patients in the WEPD arm accessed health care worth £5,420 on average and gained 0.02131 QALYs, compared to £5,130 and 0.02133 QALYs gained in the standard care arm. The WEPD strategy was more costly and equally effective compared to standard care, but there was significant uncertainty around incremental costs and QALYs. The findings were robust to a range of sensitivity analyses.
conclusionsThere is no evidence to suggest that WEPDs can be considered a cost effective device to reduce SSI. Their continued use is a waste of limited health care resources.
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.