ArticleInternational scholarly research notices2014
A Randomized Study Comparing Skin Staples with Subcuticular Sutures for Wound Closure at Caesarean Section in Black-Skinned Women.
Article in International scholarly research notices, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Sutures versus clips for skin closure following caesarean section: a systematic review, meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of randomised controlled trials.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2022Pooled it
- Patient Satisfaction After Subcuticular Sutures and Metallic Staples for Skin Closure in Caesarean Section: A Randomized Study at a Tertiary Centre.Journal of obstetrics and gynaecology of India · 2025Article
- Discharge instructions given to women following delivery by cesarean section in Sub-Saharan Africa: A scoping review.PLOS global public health · 2022Article
- Comparison of the effect of skin closure materials on skin closure during cesarean delivery.PloS one · 2022Article
- Tissue Adhesives: From Research to Clinical Translation.Nano today · 2021Article
- Comparison of Wound Tape and Suture Wounds on Traumatic Wounds' Scar.Advanced biomedical research · 2018Article
- Comparative Study of Use of Reusable Skin Staples and Vertical Mattress Sutures in the Closure of Midline Laparotomy Wounds.Journal of the West African College of SurgeonsArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to compare patients' satisfaction and outcome of caesarean section wound closure by skin staples and subcuticular suture at discharge and 6 weeks of postoperation. It was a randomized controlled trial of pregnant women scheduled for caesarean section at the University College Hospital, Ibadan, Nigeria, allocating them to wound closure by skin staples or subcuticular suture. Pain was assessed using the box numeric pain scale. Scar assessments were by patient, research nurse, and independent observers using the visual analogue scale, modified patient observer scar assessment scale, and patient satisfaction scale. Operation time (minutes) was significantly shorter in the staple group, 40.26 (±16.53) compared to 47.55 (±14.55) in the suture group (P = 0.025). Skin closure time (seconds) was significantly less in the staple group, 118.62 (±69.68) versus 388.70 (±170.40) in the suture group (P ≤ 0.001). There was no difference in pain experienced, wound assessment by the participants, and patients' satisfaction. Participants in the staple group scored higher on both scar assessment scales by the nurse (P = 0.044). Cost comparison analysis showed that staple use costs significantly more than suture use (P < 0.001). The perceived benefit of subcuticular suture over skin staples was not observed and participants were satisfied with both wound closure techniques.
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.