Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28601567›Full record

Trial reportAmerican journal of obstetrics and gynecology2017

Impact of evidence-based interventions on wound complications after cesarean delivery.

Lorene A Temming, Nandini Raghuraman, Ebony B Carter, Molly J Stout, Roxane M Rampersad, George A Macones, Alison G Cahill, Methodius G Tuuli

Open access · greenAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in American journal of obstetrics and gynecology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
6.9field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 68 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Skin preparation for preventing infection following caesarean section.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2020
    Pooled it
  5. Skin preparation for preventing infection following caesarean section.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018
    Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Postpartum pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis and complications in a US cohort.American journal of obstetrics and gynecology · 2024
    Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Observational
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. 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

8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Lorene A TemmingDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO. Electronic address: temmingl@wudosis.wustl.edu.
Nandini RaghuramanDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO.
Ebony B CarterDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO.
Molly J StoutDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO.
Roxane M RampersadDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO.
George A MaconesDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO.
Alison G CahillDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO.
Methodius G TuuliDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO.
Washington University in St. Louis · US

Funding

WU INSTITUTE OF CLINICAL AND TRANSLATIONAL SCIENCESUL1TR002345 · NCATS · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI William G. Powderly · 2017 to 2026
$97.8M
Washington University Institute of Clinical and Translational SciencesUL1TR000448 · NCATS · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI EVANOFF, BRADLEY A · 2012 to 2016
$41.4M
Women's Reproductive Health Research Career Development Program at W.U., St LouisK12HD063086 · NICHD · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI MACONES, GEORGE A · 2009 to 2013
$2.6M
Reproductive Epidemiology Training Program at Washington University in St. LouisT32HD055172 · NICHD · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI MADDEN, TESSA · 2009 to 2018
$2.5M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR000448NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR002345NICHD NIH HHS K12 HD063086NICHD NIH HHS T32 HD055172
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundA number of evidence-based interventions have been proposed to reduce post-cesarean delivery wound complications. Examples of such interventions include appropriate timing of preoperative antibiotics, appropriate choice of skin antisepsis, closure of the subcutaneous layer if subcutaneous depth is ≥2 cm, and subcuticular skin closure with suture rather than staples. However, the collective impact of these measures is unclear.

objectiveWe sought to estimate the impact of a group of evidence-based surgical measures (prophylactic antibiotics administered before skin incision, chlorhexidine-alcohol for skin antisepsis, closure of subcutaneous layer, and subcuticular skin closure with suture) on wound complications after cesarean delivery and to estimate residual risk factors for wound complications. STUDY

designWe conducted a secondary analysis of data from a randomized controlled trial of chlorhexidine-alcohol vs iodine-alcohol for skin antisepsis at cesarean delivery from 2011-2015. The primary outcome for this analysis was a composite of wound complications that included surgical site infection, cellulitis, seroma, hematoma, and separation within 30 days. Risk of wound complications in women who received all 4 evidence-based measures (prophylactic antibiotics within 60 minutes of cesarean delivery and before skin incision, chlorhexidine-alcohol for skin antisepsis with 3 minutes of drying time before incision, closure of subcutaneous layer if ≥2 cm of depth, and subcuticular skin closure with suture) were compared with those women who did not. We performed logistic regression analysis limited to patients who received all the evidence-based measures to estimate residual risk factors for wound complications and surgical site infection.

resultsOf 1082 patients with follow-up data, 349 (32.3%) received all the evidence-based measures, and 733 (67.7%) did not. The risk of wound complications was significantly lower in patients who received all the evidence-based measures compared with those who did not (20.3% vs 28.1%; adjusted relative risk, 0.75; 95% confidence interval, 0.58-0.95). The impact appeared to be driven largely by a reduction in surgical site infections. Among patients who received all the evidence-based measures, unscheduled cesarean delivery was the only significant risk factor for wound complications (27.5% vs 16.1%; adjusted relative risk, 1.71; 95% confidence interval, 1.12-2.47) and surgical site infection (6.9% vs 1.6%; relative risk, 3.74; 95% confidence interval, 1.18-11.92). Other risk factors, which include obesity, smoking, diabetes mellitus, chorioamnionitis, surgical experience, and skin incision type, were not significant among patients who received all of the 4 evidence-based measures.

conclusionImplementation of evidence-based measures significantly reduces wound complications, but the residual risk remains high, which suggests the need for additional interventions, especially in patients who undergo unscheduled cesarean deliveries, who are at risk for wound complications even after receiving current evidence-based measures.

Indexed as

Cesarean SectionEvidence-Based PracticeAdultAntibiotic ProphylaxisAnti-Infective Agents, LocalCellulitisChlorhexidineChorioamnionitisDiabetes MellitusEmergenciesFemaleHematomaHumansMissouriObesityPregnancyAnti-Infective Agents, LocalChlorhexidinecesarean deliveryevidence-based measuresinfectionskin antisepsisskin closuresubcutaneous tissuesurgical site infectionwound complication

Identifiers

PMID28601567
PMCPMC5614824
OpenAlexW2726261189

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.