Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29969521›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2018

Negative pressure wound therapy for open traumatic wounds.

Zipporah Iheozor-Ejiofor, Katy Newton, Jo C Dumville, Matthew L Costa, Gill Norman, Julie Bruce

Registry-linked trialOpen access · bronzeAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04093635 (Role of Negative Pressure Wound Therapy in the Management of Diabetic Foot Ulcers), which is not on this map. Cited by 52 papers, 11 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
52citing papers in PubMed, 11 pooled it
10.2field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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.

NCT04093635 unknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2019, after this paper: background citation

Role of Negative Pressure Wound Therapy in the Management of Diabetic Foot Ulcers

TypeobservationalSponsorAssiut UniversityRan2019 to 2021Enrolled40ConditionsDiabetic Foot UlcerArmsNegative Pressure Wound Therapy
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

52 citing papers in PubMed, 11 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 107 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Negative pressure wound therapy for the prevention of surgical site infections in orthopedic and trauma surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs.Journal of orthopaedics and traumatology : official journal of the Italian Society of Orthopaedics and Traumatology · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Negative pressure wound therapy for open traumatic wounds.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018
    Pooled it
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Electrical Stimulation Therapy - Dedicated to the Perfect Plastic Repair.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2025
    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

6 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Zipporah Iheozor-EjioforSchool of Medicine, University of Central Lancashire, Harrington Building, Preston, Lancashire, UK.
Katy Newton
Jo C Dumville
Matthew L Costa
Gill Norman
Julie Bruce
Manchester Academic Health Science Centre · GBHealth Education North West · GBUniversity of Central Lancashire · GBUniversity of Oxford · GBUniversity of Warwick · GB

Funding

Department of Health 13/89/08
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTraumatic wounds (wounds caused by injury) range from abrasions and minor skin incisions or tears, to wounds with extensive tissue damage or loss as well as damage to bone and internal organs. Two key types of traumatic wounds considered in this review are those that damage soft tissue only and those that involve a broken bone, that is, open fractures. In some cases these wounds are left open and negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) is used as a treatment. This medical device involves the application of a wound dressing through which negative pressure is applied and tissue fluid drawn away from the area. The treatment aims to support wound management, to prepare wounds for further surgery, to reduce the risk of infection and potentially to reduce time to healing (with or without surgical intervention). There are no systematic reviews assessing the effectiveness of NPWT for traumatic wounds.

objectivesTo assess the effects of NPWT for treating open traumatic wounds in people managed in any care setting. SEARCH

methodsIn June 2018 we searched the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Ovid MEDLINE (including In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations), Ovid Embase and EBSCO CINAHL Plus. We also searched clinical trials registries for ongoing and unpublished studies, and scanned reference lists of relevant included studies as well as reviews, meta-analyses and health technology reports to identify additional studies. There were no restrictions with respect to language, date of publication or study setting. SELECTION CRITERIA: Published and unpublished randomised controlled trials that used NPWT for open traumatic wounds involving either open fractures or soft tissue wounds. Wound healing, wound infection and adverse events were our primary outcomes. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected eligible studies, extracted data, carried out a 'Risk of bias' assessment and rated the certainty of the evidence. Data were presented and analysed separately for open fracture wounds and other open traumatic wounds (not involving a broken bone). MAIN

resultsSeven RCTs (1377 participants recruited) met the inclusion criteria of this review. Study sample sizes ranged from 40 to 586 participants. One study had three arms, which were all included in the review. Six studies compared NPWT at 125 mmHg with standard care: one of these studies did not report any relevant outcome data. One further study compared NPWT at 75 mmHg with standard care and NPWT 125mmHg with NPWT 75 mmHg.Open fracture wounds (four studies all comparing NPWT 125 mmHg with standard care)One study (460 participants) comparing NPWT 125 mmHg with standard care reported the proportions of wounds healed in each arm. At six weeks there was no clear difference between groups in the number of participants with a healed, open fracture wound: risk ratio (RR) 1.01 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81 to 1.27); moderate-certainty evidence, downgraded for imprecision.We pooled data on wound infection from four studies (596 participants). Follow-up varied between studies but was approximately 30 days. On average, it is uncertain whether NPWT at 125 mmHg reduces the risk of wound infection compared with standard care (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.20 to 1.13; I AUTHORS'

conclusionsThere is moderate-certainty evidence for no clear difference between NPWT and standard care on the proportion of wounds healed at six weeks for open fracture wounds. There is moderate-certainty evidence that NPWT is not a cost-effective treatment for open fracture wounds. Moderate-certainty evidence means that the true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different. It is uncertain whether there is a difference in risk of wound infection, adverse events, time to closure or coverage surgery, pain or health-related quality of life between NPWT and standard care for any type of open traumatic wound.

Indexed as

Fractures, OpenHumansNegative-Pressure Wound TherapyQuality-Adjusted Life YearsQuality of LifeRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSoft Tissue InjuriesWound HealingWound Infection

Identifiers

PMID29969521
PMCPMC6513538
OpenAlexW2810102403

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.