Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27350045›Full record

ReviewLangenbeck's archives of surgery2016

Infection control in colon surgery.

Donald E Fry

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Langenbeck's archives of surgery, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 15% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Donald E FryMPA Healthcare Solutions, 1 East Wacker Drive, Suite 1210, 60601, Chicago, IL, USA. dfry@consultmpa.com.
Northwestern University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe aim of this study is to provide a comprehensive review of strategies that should be employed in the prevention of infection at the surgical site in patients undergoing colon surgery.

methodsThe world's literature on the pathogenesis and prevention of infections at the surgical site in colon resection were reviewed to identify those methods that are associated with improved rates of infection at the surgical site. The pathogenesis, microbiology, diagnosis, and surveillance of surgical site infection have been reviewed in the context of better understanding the accepted methods for prevention. Recommendations are provided based upon evidence-based information when available.

resultsSurgical site infection rates in colon surgery have been reduced consistently over the last 60 years of surgical practice. Preoperative and intraoperative techniques are described which have been useful in this improvement, while postoperative methods including the extension of postoperative systemic antibiotics have not been of value.

conclusionsMany methods have been demonstrated to improve surgical site infection rates in colon surgery. However, consistent and standardized applications of these principals in prevention currently do not exist. Application of evidence-based practices can further reduce the morbidity and cost of infection following colon surgery.

Indexed as

Preoperative CareColonHumansSurgical Wound InfectionColon surgeryMechanical bowel preparationOral antibiotic bowel preparationPreventive antibioticsSurgical infection control

Identifiers

PMID27350045
OpenAlexW2462532954

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.