Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31087729›Full record

Trial reportWound repair and regeneration : official publication of the Wound Healing Society [and] the European Tissue Repair Society2019

A prospective, randomized, controlled clinical trial on the efficacy of a single-use negative pressure wound therapy system, compared to traditional negative pressure wound therapy in the treatment of chronic ulcers of the lower extremities.

Robert Kirsner, Cyaandi Dove, Alex Reyzelman, Dean Vayser, Henry Jaimes

Abstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled TrialEquivalence Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Wound repair and regeneration : official publication of the Wound Healing Society [and] the European Tissue Repair Society, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Chronic wounds: Treatment consensus.Wound repair and regeneration : official publication of the Wound Healing Society [and] the European Tissue Repair Society · 2022
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Cellular benefits of single-use negative pressure wound therapy demonstrated in a novel ex vivo human skin wound model.Wound repair and regeneration : official publication of the Wound Healing Society [and] the European Tissue Repair Society · 2021
    Article
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Robert KirsnerChairman and Harvey Blank Professor, Dr. Phillip Frost Department of Dermatology and Cutaneous Surgery, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, Florida.
Cyaandi DoveAdvanced Foot & Ankle Center, Las Vegas, NV.
Alex ReyzelmanAssociate Professor, Department of Medicine, California School of Podiatric Medicine at Samuel Merritt University, Co-Director UCSF Center for Limb Preservation, San Francisco, CA.
Dean VayserScripps Clinic Medical Group, Department of Orthopedics/Foot & Ankle Center, Chief, Wound Care Division, San Diego, CA.
Henry JaimesGlobal Senior Medical Director-Wounds Smith and Nephew, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-6526-1963

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Multicenter, phase-4, randomized, comparative-efficacy study in patients with VLUs or DFUs comparing for noninferiority the percentage change in target ulcer dimensions (area, depth, and volume) a single-use negative pressure wound therapy (s-NPWT) system versus traditional NPWT (t-NPWT) over a 12-week treatment period or up to confirmed healing. Baseline values were taken at the randomization visit. Randomized by wound type and size, 164 patients with non-infected DFUs and VLUs were included. The ITT population was composed of 161 patients (101 with VLUs, 60 with DFUs) and 115 patients completed follow-up (64 in the s-NPWT group and 51 in the t-NPWT group) (PP population). The average age for all patients was 61.5 years, 36.6% were women, and treatment groups were statistically similar at baseline. Primary endpoint analyses on wound area reduction demonstrated statistically significant reduction in favor of s-NPWT (p = 0.003) for the PP population and for the ITT population (p < 0.001). Changes in wound depth (p = 0.018) and volume (p = 0.013) were also better with s-NPWT. Faster wound closure was observed with s-NPWT (Cox Proportional Hazards ratio (0.493 (0.273, 0.891); p = 0.019) in the ITT population. Wound closure occurred in 45% of patients in the s-NPWT group vs. 22.2% of patients in the t-NPWT group (p = 0.002). Median estimate of the time to wound closure was 77 days for s-NPWT. No estimate could be provided for t-NPWT due to the low number of patients achieving wound closure. Device-related AEs were more frequent in the t-NPWT group (41 AEs from 29 patients) than in the s-NPWT group (16 AEs from 12 patients). The s-NPWT system met noninferiority and achieved statistical superiority vs. t-NPWT in terms of wound progression toward healing over the treatment period. When NPWT is being considered for the management of challenging VLUs and DFUs, s-NPWT should be considered a first choice over other types of NPWT.

Indexed as

FemaleHumansLeg UlcerMaleMiddle AgedNegative-Pressure Wound TherapyProspective StudiesTreatment OutcomeWound Healing

Identifiers

PMID31087729
PMCPMC6852528

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.