Trial reportTrials2015
Clinical trial to evaluate the performance of a flexible self-adherent absorbent dressing coated with a soft silicone layer compared to a standard wound dressing after orthopedic or spinal surgery: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in Trials, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01988818 (A Mono-centre, Post CE-mark, Prospective-randomized Clinical Trial to Evaluate the Performance of a Flexible Self-adherent Absorbent Dressing Coated With a Soft Silicone Layer After Hip or Knee Arthroplasty or Primary Spine Surgery in Comparison to a Standard Wound Dressing), which is not on this map. Cited by 4 papers, 2 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.
A Mono-centre, Post CE-mark, Prospective-randomized Clinical Trial to Evaluate the Performance of a Flexible Self-adherent Absorbent Dressing Coated With a Soft Silicone Layer After Hip or Knee Arthroplasty or Primary Spine Surgery in Comparison to a Standard Wound Dressing (Cosmopor E®Steril, Fa. Hartmann)
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- The effect of different wound dressing materials used in postoperative treatment of wounds after total hip arthroplasty and total knee arthroplasty: A meta-analysis.International wound journal · 2022Pooled it
- In search of the optimal wound dressing material following total hip and knee arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis.International orthopaedics · 2017Pooled it
- Article
- Evaluation of Absorbent Versus Conventional Wound Dressing.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2018Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPostoperative wound infection is a preventable risk. One potential postoperative complication is blistering, which leads to increased pain, delayed healing, and higher care costs. The incidence of wound blisters has been reported to be between 6 and 24%. The aim of this study is to assess whether the risks of postoperative blistering and wound infections within the first 6 days postsurgery will be reduced using a special dressing compared to a standard one. METHODS/
designThis is a randomized clinical trial in a University hospital. Patients presenting for knee or hip arthroplasty or spine procedures will be assessed against study inclusion and exclusion criteria. After giving written informed consent, patients will be randomized to participate in the 7-day study during hospitalization. One hundred patients will be randomized per group. The primary outcome measure is blistering incidence from day 0 to day 6 postsurgery. Photo documentation will be evaluated in a blinded manner by the Clinical Evaluation Committee (CEC). DISCUSSION: A new dressing will be compared to the standard wound dressing regarding the risk of postoperative blistering, wound infection, and patient comfort. This study will assess the potential advantages of a modern wound dressing.
trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT01988818 (Entered 13 November 2011).
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.