ArticleInternational wound journal2017
Ten-year analyses of the German DRG data about negative pressure wound therapy.
Article in International wound journal, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Retained Negative Pressure Wound Therapy Foams as a Cause of Infection Persistence.Advances in wound care · 2021Review
- Use of maggot debridement therapy in hospitalised patients in Germany.International wound journal · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Exact data regarding the clinical role of negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) for wound care in a specific country are not available. Thus, we analysed the use of NPWT in hospitalised patients in Germany. Detailed lists of all hospitalised cases treated with NPWT in Germany for each of the years from 2005 to 2014 were obtained from the Federal Statistical Office, as well as lists of the 15 most frequent principal and additional diagnoses documented with NPWT in 2014. Within the 10-year time period of the study, the number of cases treated with NPWT increased by 349%, from 37 053 in 2005 to 129 269 in 2014. The rate of all hospitalised cases treated with NPWT increased form 0·22% to 0·66% in Germany. In 2014, wounds affecting skin and subcutaneous tissue (5-916.a0) are the most frequent documented indication for NPWT followed by deep wounds involving bones and joints at the limbs (5-916.a1). Open abdomens (5-916.a3) count for higher numbers than deep wounds of the thorax, mediastinum and sternum (5-916.a2). Fifty percent of all cases hospitalised for stage IV pressure ulcers at sacrum or ischium and around one third (32.2%) of cases with pyothorax received NPWT. Every fourth to fifth case hospitalised for disruption of surgical wounds or infections following a procedure (24·1%), as well as for infections and inflammations because of internal joint prosthesis or because of an internal fixation device was treated with NPWT (22·9%). In cases with diabetic foot syndrome, it is still every tenth case (10·1%). This analysis shows a substantial increase in the use of NPWT in the last decade for hospitalised patients. NPWT has a fixed role in the treatment of stage IV pressure ulcers at sacrum or ischium, pyothorax, infection and inflammation because of internal joint prosthesis or an internal fixation device and diabetic foot syndrome.
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.