Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26832435›Full record

Trial reportBMJ open2016

ADding negative pRESSure to improve healING (the DRESSING trial): a RCT protocol.

Brigid M Gillespie, Joan Webster, David Ellwood, Helen Stapleton, Jennifer A Whitty, Lukman Thalib, Nicky Cullum, Kassam Mahomed, Wendy Chaboyer

Open access · goldAbstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled TrialPragmatic Clinical Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMJ open, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 20% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Article
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

9 authors at 6 institutions in 3 countries.

Brigid M GillespieNHMRC Centre for Research Excellence in Nursing, Centre for Health Practice Innovation (HPI), Menzies Health Institute Qld (MHIQ), Griffith University, Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia.
Joan WebsterResearch Centre for Clinical Nursing, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital and Griffith University, Nathan, Queensland, Australia.
David EllwoodDepartment of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, Griffith University School of Medicine and Director of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Gold Coast University Hospital, Australia.
Helen StapletonMater Research Institute and The University of Queensland (MRI-UQ), Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
Jennifer A WhittyDepartment of Health Economics, Pharmacoeconomics & Quality Use of Medicines, School of Pharmacy, University of Queensland, Australia.
Lukman ThalibDepartment of Health Sciences, College of Arts & Science, Qatar University, Qatar.
Nicky CullumSchool of Nursing, Midwifery & Social Work, The University of Manchester, UK.
Kassam MahomedWest Moreton Hospital and Health Service, Ipswich, Queensland, Australia.
Wendy ChaboyerNHMRC Centre for Research Excellence in Nursing, Menzies Health Institute Qld (MHIQ), Griffith University, Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia.
Griffith University · AUIpswich Hospital · AUMater Research · AUQatar University · QAUniversity of Manchester · GBUniversity of Queensland · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionObese women are more likely to develop a surgical site infection (SSI) following caesarean section (CS) than non-obese women. Negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) is increasingly being used to reduce SSI with limited evidence for its effectiveness.

objectivesTo determine the clinical and cost-effectiveness of using NPWT in obese women having elective and semiurgent CS. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A multisite, superiority parallel pragmatic randomised controlled trial with an economic evaluation. Women with a body mass index (BMI) of ≥ 30, booked for elective and semiurgent CS at 4 Australian acute care hospitals will be targeted. A total of 2090 women will be enrolled. A centralised randomisation service will be used with participants block randomised to either NPWT or standard surgical dressings in a 1:1 ratio, stratified by hospital. The primary outcome is SSI; secondary outcomes include type of SSI, length of stay, readmission, wound complications and health-related quality of life. Economic outcomes include direct healthcare costs and cost-effectiveness, which will be evaluated using incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year gained. Data will be collected at baseline, and participants followed up on the second postoperative day and weekly from the day of surgery for 4 weeks. Outcome assessors will be masked to allocation. The primary statistical analysis will be based on intention-to-treat. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval has been obtained from the ethics committees of the participating hospitals and universities. The findings of the trial will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals, national and international conference presentations. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12615000286549; Pre-results.

Indexed as

Cesarean SectionResearch DesignWound HealingAustraliaCost-Benefit AnalysisFemaleHumansNegative-Pressure Wound TherapyObesityPregnancySurgical Wound InfectionTreatment OutcomeWOUND MANAGEMENT

Identifiers

PMID26832435
PMCPMC4746446
OpenAlexW2266160203

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.