ArticlePlastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open2019
Meta-analysis Comparing Outcomes of Two Different Negative Pressure Therapy Systems in Closed Incision Management.
Article in Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open, 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.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
16 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 25 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Two Negative Pressure Wound Therapy Devices to Manage Cesarean Section Incisions.American journal of perinatology · 2024Pooled it
- Surgical site infection outcomes of two different closed incision negative pressure therapy systems in cardiac surgery: Systematic review and meta-analysis.International wound journal · 2024Pooled it
- Managing Drainless Mastectomy With Closed Incision Negative Pressure Wound Therapy Using Full-coverage Foam Dressings.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2025Article
- The Operative Role of Artificial Intelligence in Vascular Surgery: A Systematic Review of Literature.Cureus · 2025Review
- Hidradenitis Suppurativa: Dermatopathological Insights and Surgical Success Strategies.Skin research and technology : official journal of International Society for Bioengineering and the Skin (ISBS) [and] International Society for Digital Imaging of Skin (ISDIS) [and] International Society for Skin Imaging (ISSI) · 2024Article
- Efficacy of Closed-Incision Negative Pressure Wound Therapy in Reducing Postoperative Complications in Breast Reconstruction After Radiotherapy: A Propensity Score Analysis.Aesthetic surgery journal. Open forum · 2024Article
- Article
- Closed Incision Negative Pressure Therapy in Oncoplastic Breast Surgery: A Comparison of Outcomes.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2023Article
- Closed Incision Negative Pressure Therapy versus Standard of Care in Reduction of Surgical Site Complications: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2023Article
- Article
- Closed-Incision and Surrounding Soft Tissue Negative Pressure Dressings in Post-Mastectomy Pre-Pectoral Direct-to-Implant Breast Reconstruction: A Pilot Study.Plastic surgery (Oakville, Ont.) · 2022Article
- The use of closed incision negative pressure therapy for incision and surrounding soft tissue management: Expert panel consensus recommendations.International wound journal · 2022Review
- Closed-incision negative pressure therapy at -125 mmHg significantly reduces surgical site complications following total hip and knee arthroplasties: A stratified meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Health science reports · 2022Article
- Article
- Effect of closed incision negative pressure wound therapy on incidence rate of surgical site infection after stoma reversal: a pilot study.Wideochirurgia i inne techniki maloinwazyjne = Videosurgery and other miniinvasive techniques · 2021Article
- Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundClosed incision negative pressure therapy (ciNPT) is an emerging approach to managing closed incisions of patients at risk of postoperative complications. There are primarily 2 different commercially available ciNPT systems. Both systems consist of a single-use, battery-powered device and foam- or gauze-based peel-and-place dressing designed for closed incisions. These systems vary in design, and there are no data comparing outcomes between the 2 systems.
methodsWe performed 2 separate meta-analyses to compare surgical site infection (SSI) rates postuse of (1) ciNPT with foam dressing (FOAM) versus conventional dressings and (2) ciNPT with multilayer absorbent dressing (MLA) versus conventional dressings.
resultsSeven articles and 2 abstracts met inclusion criteria in the FOAM group (n = 489) versus the control group (n = 489) in meta-analysis 1; 7 articles and 1 abstract met inclusion criteria in the MLA group (n = 532) versus the control group (n = 540) in meta-analysis 2. Meta-analysis 1 showed that patients in the control group were 3.17 times more likely to develop an SSI compared with patients in the FOAM group [weighted mean odds ratios of FOAM group versus control group was 3.17 (
conclusionsComparing outcomes of two different ciNPT systems with a common comparator (conventional dressings) may provide an interim basis for comparing ciNPT systems until further comparative evidence is available. More comparative research is required to determine outcomes in clinical practice.
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.