ArticleDeutsches Arzteblatt international2018
Evaluation of Absorbent Versus Conventional Wound Dressing.
Article in Deutsches Arzteblatt international, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01988818 (A Mono-centre, Post CE-mark, Prospective-randomized Clinical Trial to Evaluate the Performance of a Flexible Self-adherent Absorbent Dressing Coated With a Soft Silicone Layer After Hip or Knee Arthroplasty or Primary Spine Surgery in Comparison to a Standard Wound Dressing), which is not on this map. Cited by 9 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.
A Mono-centre, Post CE-mark, Prospective-randomized Clinical Trial to Evaluate the Performance of a Flexible Self-adherent Absorbent Dressing Coated With a Soft Silicone Layer After Hip or Knee Arthroplasty or Primary Spine Surgery in Comparison to a Standard Wound Dressing (Cosmopor E®Steril, Fa. Hartmann)
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- The effect of different wound dressing materials used in postoperative treatment of wounds after total hip arthroplasty and total knee arthroplasty: A meta-analysis.International wound journal · 2022Pooled it
- A prospective randomized study that compares three different dressings for the prevention of surgical site infections following major heart surgery.Scientific reports · 2025Trial
- 'No Dressing' Strategy for Post-operative Orthopaedic Cases.Journal of orthopaedic case reports · 2026Article
- Article
- Could intermittent change of conventional dressing affect risk of periprosthetic joint infection after primary total joint arthroplasty?Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2022Article
- Consider the Adhesives of Wound Dressings.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2018Article
- In Reply.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2018Article
- Lukewarm Tap Water.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2018Article
- Towards Simpler and Reliable Wound Care.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLower-limb endoprosthetic operations and spinal operations are among the more common types of orthopedic procedures. Postoperative woundhealing disturbances and infections can lead to longer periods of hospital stay and recovery as well as to higher morbidity and mortality.
methods209 patients who had been judged to have an indication for a primary knee or hip endoprosthesis or for a primary spinal operation were included in this randomized trial (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01988818) over the period June 2014- February 2015. After randomization, patients in the intervention group were given a trial dressing (Mepilex-Border Post-Op) and those in the control group were given a conventional adhesive dressing (Cosmopor). The primary endpoint was blister formation.
resultsIn the overall study population, only a single case of blister formation was seen. The affected patient belonged to the intervention group but was mistakenly given a control dressing and developed blisters on the 6th day after surgery. Dressings were changed less frequently in the intervention group, and this difference was statistically significant (p<0.001). The patients, nurses, and physicians all expressed greater satisfaction with the trial dressings than with the control dressings (p<0.001).
conclusionThe intervention group did not differ from the control group with respect to the primary endpoint, postoperative blister formation. The patients, nurses, and physicians all judged the dressing used in the intervention group more favorably than the conventional dressing.
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.