Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31396673›Full record

SynthesisWorld journal of surgery2019

Prophylactic Negative Pressure Wound Therapy in Closed Abdominal Incisions: A Meta-analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials.

Cameron I Wells, Chathura B B Ratnayake, Jenni Perrin, Sanjay Pandanaboyana

Registry-linked trialAbstract readMeta-Analysis
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in World journal of surgery, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04434820 (External Negative Pressure Dressing System), which is not on this map. Cited by 28 papers, 9 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 9 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.

NCT04434820 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2020, after this paper: background citation

External Negative Pressure Dressing System (ENPDS) vs. Traditional Wound Dressing for Cesarean Section Incision in Obese Women.

TypeinterventionalSponsorAin Shams Maternity HospitalRan2020 to 2021Enrolled260ConditionsWound DehiscenceArmsExternal negative pressure dressing system (Yuwell 7E-A portable suction unit)
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

28 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. 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. Trial
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

4 authors.

Cameron I WellsDepartment of Surgery, Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.
Chathura B B RatnayakeDepartment of Surgery, Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.
Jenni PerrinDepartment of Surgery, Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.
Sanjay PandanaboyanaDepartment of Surgery, Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand. sanjay.pandanaboyana@nuth.nhs.uk.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionNegative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) may prevent subcutaneous fluid accumulation in a closed wound and subsequently reduce surgical site infections (SSI). This meta-analysis aimed to determine the effect of prophylactic NPWT on SSI incidence following abdominal surgery.

methodsA systematic search of MEDLINE and EMBASE databases was performed using PRISMA methodology. All randomised trials reporting the use of NPWT in closed abdominal incisions were included, regardless of the type of operation. The primary outcome measure was the incidence of SSI, stratified by superficial and deep and organ/space infections. Secondary outcomes were wound dehiscence and length of hospital stay.

resultsTen randomised trials met the inclusion criteria (five Caesarean, five midline laparotomy). The use of NPWT reduced overall SSI (11.6% vs. 16.7%, RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.48-0.95, p = 0.02). The rate of superficial SSI rate was also reduced (6.3% vs. 11.3%, RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.35-0.94, p = 0.03). There was no effect on deep or organ/space SSI (3.2% vs. 4.2%, RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.51-1.18, p = 0.23), wound dehiscence (9.7% vs. 10.9%, RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.69-1.21, p = 0.54), or length of hospital stay (MD 0.06 days, 95% CI-0.11 to 0.23, p = 0.51).

conclusionsProphylactic use of NPWT may reduce the incidence of superficial SSI in closed abdominal incisions but has no effect on deep or organ space SSI.

Indexed as

AbdomenHumansLength of StayNegative-Pressure Wound TherapyRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSurgical Wound Infection

Identifiers

PMID31396673

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.