ArticleJMIR research protocols2018
Negative-Pressure Wound Therapy Versus Standard Treatment of Adult Patients With Conflict-Related Extremity Wounds: Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial.
Article in JMIR research protocols, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02444598 (A Prospective, Randomized, Controlled Trial of Negative-pressure Wound Therapy Use in Conflict-related Extremity Wounds), which is not on this map. Cited by 3 papers.
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 Prospective, Randomized, Controlled Trial of Negative-pressure Wound Therapy Use in Conflict-related Extremity Wounds (VACoCREW Trial)
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cost analysis of negative-pressure wound therapy versus standard treatment of acute conflict-related extremity wounds within a randomized controlled trial.World journal of emergency surgery : WJES · 2022Trial
- Wound specific quality of life after blast or gunshot injury: Validation of the wound QoL instrument.PloS one · 2022Trial
- Epidemiology of civilian patients with acute conflict-related extremity injuries sustained in Syria and Iraq.PLOS global public health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn armed conflict, injuries commonly affect the extremities and contamination with foreign material often increases the risk of infection. The use of negative-pressure wound therapy has been described in the treatment of acute conflict-related wounds, but reports are retrospective and with limited follow-up.
objectiveThe objective of this study is to investigate the effectiveness and safety of negative-pressure wound therapy use in the treatment of patients with conflict-related extremity wounds.
methodsThis is a multisite, superiority, pragmatic randomized controlled trial. We are considering for inclusion patients 18 years of age and older who are presenting with a conflict-related extremity wound within 72 hours after injury. Patients are block randomly assigned to either negative-pressure wound therapy or standard treatment in a 1:1 ratio. The primary end point is wound closure by day 5. Secondary end points include length of stay, wound infection, sepsis, wound complications, death, and health-related quality of life. We will explore economic outcomes, including direct health care costs and cost effectiveness, in a substudy. Data are collected at baseline and at each dressing change, and participants are followed for up to 3 months. We will base the primary statistical analysis on intention-to-treat.
resultsThe trial is ongoing. Patient enrollment started in June 2015. We expect to publish findings from the trial by the end of 2019.
conclusionsTo the best of our knowledge, there has been no randomized trial of negative-pressure wound therapy in this context. We expect that our findings will increase the knowledge to establish best-treatment strategies.
trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT02444598; http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02444598 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/72hjI2XNX). INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/12334.
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.