Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29560407›Full record

ArticleArthroplasty today2018

The effect of wound dressings on infection following total joint arthroplasty.

Kevin K Chen, Ameer M Elbuluk, Jonathan M Vigdorchik, William J Long, Ran Schwarzkopf

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Arthroplasty today, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04038671 (Activated Carbon Interphase Effect on Surgical Incisions Compared to Two Common Wound Dressings in a Prospective Randomized Control Trial), which is not on this map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 23% 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.

NCT04038671 nawithdrawnnot on this mapstarted 2019, after this paper: background citation

Activated Carbon Interphase Effect on Surgical Incisions Compared to Two Common Wound Dressings in a Prospective Randomized Control Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorBrock Liden, DPMRan2019 to 2020Enrolled0ConditionsSurgical Wound, HealedArmsActivated Carbon Cloth Dressing, Knitted Cellulose Acetate Mesh, Antimicrobial Alginate Dressing with Silver
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Kevin K ChenDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, NYU Langone Medical Center's Hospital for Joint Diseases, New York, NY, USA.
Ameer M ElbulukDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, NYU Langone Medical Center's Hospital for Joint Diseases, New York, NY, USA.
Jonathan M VigdorchikDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, NYU Langone Medical Center's Hospital for Joint Diseases, New York, NY, USA.
William J LongDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, NYU Langone Medical Center's Hospital for Joint Diseases, New York, NY, USA.
Ran SchwarzkopfDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, NYU Langone Medical Center's Hospital for Joint Diseases, New York, NY, USA.
NYU Langone Health · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe use of perioperative surgical wound dressings is an important factor in the mitigation of infection following total joint arthroplasty (TJA). Few studies have been published comparing wound dressings and infection rates after TJA.

methodsMEDLINE, PubMed, and EMBASE were searched for studies published between 2006 and 2016 reporting infection rates in patients using various wound dressings after undergoing TJA. All studies comparing Hydrofibre dressings to Standard dressings or Absorbent dressings were included in this meta-analysis. Studies looking at TJA secondary to trauma were excluded. Two individuals independently extracted data, and study results were divided based on type of treatment. The primary outcome was to compare the infection rate of Hydrofibre dressings to that of both Standard Dressings and Absorbent dressings.

resultsOf a total of 3721 participants, 1483 were treated with Standard dressings (non-impregnated gauze), 1911 with Hydrofibre dressings, and 327 with Absorbent dressings. The risk ratio for infection comparing Standard with Hydrofibre was 4.16 (95% confidence interval, 1.71-10.16) as compared to 2.60 (95% confidence interval, 0.66-10.27) when comparing Absorbent with Hydrofibre dressings.

conclusionsOur analysis suggests that Hydrofibre dressings may be significantly better than Standard and Absorbent dressings with respect to reducing infection. However, given the observed heterogeneity and small number of studies included, more comparative studies are needed to definitively recommend superiority among dressings following TJA. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 1.

Indexed as

BlisteringInfectionTotal joint arthroplastyWound dressings

Identifiers

PMID29560407
PMCPMC5859663
OpenAlexW2729320658

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

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.