ArticleOpen access Macedonian journal of medical sciences2019
A Randomized Control Trial Comparing Transparent Film Dressings and Conventional Occlusive Dressings for Elective Surgical Procedures.
Article in Open access Macedonian journal of medical sciences, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Chronic Wound Healing: Research Advances from Pathological Mechanisms to Natural Herbal Active Ingredients and Material Delivery Systems.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Effectiveness of advanced dressings in preventing surgical site infections compared to that of standard dressings in gastrointestinal surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis for guideline revision by the Japanese Society for Surgical Infection.Annals of gastroenterological surgery · 2025Review
- Hydrogel Dressings for the Treatment of Burn Wounds: An Up-To-Date Overview.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Review
- Nanomaterials for Wound Dressings: An Up-to-Date Overview.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Review
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSurgical site infection is one of the major health-care-associated problems causing substantial morbidity and mortality and constituting a financial burden on hospitals as well. The wound management is one of the crucial evidence-based strategies in the reduction of surgical site infection rates.
aimTo study the impact of standardisation of transparent semipermeable dressing procedure on the rate of surgical site infection in comparison with conventional dressing in clean and clean-contaminated surgeries.
methodsThe study included 100 patients who were admitted to surgical wards in Cairo university hospitals, for clean and clean-contaminated operations, in the period from February 2017 to August 2017. Immunocompromised and uncontrolled diabetic patients were excluded. Patients were randomly allocated into two groups; in the first group, patients wounds were covered using transparent semipermeable dressing, while the second group patients' wounds were covered using conventional occlusive gauze dressing. Patients were followed up for criteria of infection every other day during the first week then at two weeks, three weeks and four weeks.
resultsIn clean and clean-contaminated operations, the transparent dressing group showed a significantly lesser rate of surgical site infection at (2%), compared with the conventional occlusive gauze dressing group with a surgical site infection rate of (14%) (p-value of 0.02).
conclusionThe transparent semipermeable dressing is effective in reducing surgical site infection rate in clean and clean-contaminated operations.
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.