Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25221617›Full record

ReviewWorld journal of emergency surgery : WJES2014

A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials of delayed primary wound closure in contaminated abdominal wounds.

Boonying Siribumrungwong, Pinit Noorit, Chumpon Wilasrusmee, Ammarin Thakkinstian

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in World journal of emergency surgery : WJES, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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.

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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 45 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Observational
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Observational
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Infection control in colon surgery.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2016
    Review
  20. Review
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

4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Boonying SiribumrungwongSection for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Faculty of Medicine, Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University, Rama VI Road, Rachatevi, Bangkok, 10400 Thailand ; Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Thammasat University Hospital, Thammasat University (Rangsit Campus), Pathumtani, Thailand.
Pinit NooritDepartment of Surgery, Chonburi Hospital, Chonburi, Thailand.
Chumpon WilasrusmeeDepartment of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Ammarin ThakkinstianSection for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Faculty of Medicine, Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University, Rama VI Road, Rachatevi, Bangkok, 10400 Thailand.
Ramathibodi Hospital · THChonburi Hospital · THMahidol University · TH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to compare surgical site infection (SSI) between delayed primary (DPC) and primary wound closure (PC) in complicated appendicitis and other contaminated abdominal wounds. Medline and Scopus were searched from their beginning to November 2013 to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing SSI and length of stay between DPC and PC. Studies' selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment were done by two independent authors. The risk ratio and unstandardised mean difference were pooled for SSI and length of stay, respectively. Among 8 eligible studies, 5 studies were done in complicated appendicitis, 2 with mixed complicated appendicitis and other types of abdominal operation and 1 with ileostomy closure. Most studies (75%) had high risk of bias in sequence generation and allocation concealment. Among 6 RCTs of complicated appendicitis underwent open appendectomy, the SSI between PC and DPC were not significantly different with a risk ratio of 0.89 (95% CI: 0.46, 1.73). DPC had a significantly 1.6 days (95% CI: 1.41, 1.79) longer length of stay than PC. Our evidence suggested there might be no advantage of DPC over PC in reducing SSI in complicated appendicitis. However, this was based on a small number of studies with low quality. A large scale RCT is further required.

Indexed as

AppendicitisDelayed primary closureMeta-analysisSurgical site infectionWound closureWound infection

Identifiers

PMID25221617
PMCPMC4162947
OpenAlexW2144007591

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.