Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25287701›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2014

Negative pressure wound therapy for skin grafts and surgical wounds healing by primary intention.

Joan Webster, Paul Scuffham, Monica Stankiewicz, Wendy P Chaboyer

Registry-linked trialOpen access · bronzeAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02444598 (A Prospective, Randomized, Controlled Trial of Negative-pressure Wound Therapy Use in Conflict-related Extremity Wounds), which is not on this map. Cited by 54 papers, 11 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
54citing papers in PubMed, 11 pooled it
27.9field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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.

NCT02444598 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2015, after this paper: background citation

A Prospective, Randomized, Controlled Trial of Negative-pressure Wound Therapy Use in Conflict-related Extremity Wounds (VACoCREW Trial)

TypeinterventionalSponsorKarolinska InstitutetRan2015 to 2019Enrolled116ConditionsWounds, Gunshot, Arm Injuries, Leg Injuries, Wound InfectionArmsVaccum Assisted Closure device, Conventional wound dressings
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

54 citing papers in PubMed, 11 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 228 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Negative pressure wound therapy for open traumatic wounds.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018
    Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Joan WebsterCentre for Clinical Nursing, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Level 2, Building 34, Butterfield Street, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia, 4029.
Paul Scuffham
Monica Stankiewicz
Wendy P Chaboyer
Griffith University · AURoyal Brisbane and Women's Hospital · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIndications for the use of negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) are broadening with a range of systems now available on the market, including those designed for use on clean, closed incisions and skin grafts. Reviews have concluded that the evidence for the effectiveness of NPWT remains uncertain, however, it is a rapidly evolving therapy. Consequently, an updated systematic review of the evidence for the effects of NPWT on postoperative wounds expected to heal by primary intention is required.

objectivesTo assess the effects of NPWT on surgical wounds (primary closure, skin grafting or flap closure) that are expected to heal by primary intention. SEARCH

methodsWe searched the following electronic databases to identify reports of relevant randomised clinical trials: the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (searched 28 January 2014); the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2013, issue 12); Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (2013, issue 12); Ovid MEDLINE (2011 to January 2014); Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations 24 January 2014); Ovid EMBASE (2011 to January 2014 Week 44); and EBSCO CINAHL (2011 to January 2014). We conducted a separate search to identify economic evaluations. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included trials if they allocated patients to treatment randomly and compared NPWT with any other type of wound dressing, or compared one type of NPWT with a different type of NPWT. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We assessed trials for their appropriateness for inclusion and for their quality. This was done by three review authors working independently, using pre-determined inclusion and quality criteria. MAIN

resultsIn this first update, we included an additional four trials, taking the total number of trials included to nine (785 participants). Three trials involved skin grafts, four included orthopaedic patients and two included general surgery and trauma surgery patients; all the included trials had unclear or high risk of bias for one or more of the quality indicators we assessed. Seven trials compared NPWT with a standard dressing (two of these were 'home-made' NPWT devices), one trial compared one 'home-made' NPWT with a commercially available device. In trials where the individual was the unit of randomisation, there were no differences in the incidence of surgical site infections (SSI); wound dehiscence, re-operation (in incisional wounds); seroma/haematoma; or failed skin grafts. Lower re-operation rates were observed among skin graft patients in the 'home-made' NPWT group (7/65; 10.8%) compared to the standard dressing group (17/66; 25.8%) (risk ratio (RR) 0.42; 95% CI 0.19 to 0.92). The mean cost to supply equipment for VAC® therapy was USD 96.51/day compared to USD 4.22/day for one of the 'home-made' devices (P value 0.01); labour costs for dressing changes were similar for both treatments. Pain intensity score was also reported to be lower in the 'home-made' group when compared with the VAC® group (P value 0.02). One of the trials in orthopaedic patients was stopped early because of a high incidence of fracture blisters in the NPWT group (15/24; 62.5%) compared with the standard dressing group (3/36; 8.3%) (RR 7.50; 95% CI 2.43 to 23.14). AUTHORS'

conclusionsEvidence for the effects of negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) for reducing SSI and wound dehiscence remains unclear, as does the effect of NPWT on time to complete healing. Rates of graft loss may be lower when NPWT is used, but hospital-designed and built products are as effective in this area as commercial applications. There are clear cost benefits when non-commercial systems are used to create the negative pressure required for wound therapy, with no evidence of a negative effect on clinical outcome. In one study, pain levels were also rated lower when a 'home-made' system was compared with a commercial counterpart. The high incidence of blisters occurring when NPWT is used following orthopaedic surgery suggests that the therapy should be limited until safety in this population is established. Given the cost and widespread use of NPWT, there is an urgent need for suitably powered, high-quality trials to evaluate the effects of the newer NPWT products that are designed for use on clean, closed surgical incisions. Such trials should focus initially on wounds that may be difficult to heal, such as sternal wounds or incisions on obese patients.

Indexed as

Skin TransplantationWound HealingBandagesHumansNegative-Pressure Wound TherapyOrthopedic ProceduresRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSurgical Procedures, OperativeSurgical Wound DehiscenceWounds and Injuries

Identifiers

PMID25287701
OpenAlexW2107542171

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.