Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32293657›Full record

Trial reportJAMA surgery2020

Negative Pressure Wound Therapy vs Conventional Wound Treatment in Subcutaneous Abdominal Wound Healing Impairment: The SAWHI Randomized Clinical Trial.

Dörthe Seidel, Stephan Diedrich, Florian Herrle, Henryk Thielemann, Frank Marusch, Rebekka Schirren, Recca Talaulicar, Tobias Gehrig, Nadja Lehwald-Tywuschik, Matthias Glanemann and 8 more

2 registry-linked trialsOpen access · hybridAbstract readComparative StudyMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in JAMA surgery, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 30 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
5.9field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
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.

NCT01528033 nacompletednot on this map

Treatment of Subcutaneous Abdominal Wound Healing Impairment After Surgery Without Fascial Dehiscence by Vacuum Assisted Closure™(SAWHI-V.A.C.® Study) Versus Standard Conventional Wound Therapy

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of Witten/HerdeckeRan2011 to 2018Enrolled539ConditionsWound Healing Disorder, Impaired Wound Healing, Abdominal Wound Healing Disorder, Abdominal Wound Healing ImpairmentArmsVacuum Assisted Closure®, Standard conventional wound therapy
NCT05924867 naunknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2023, after this paper: background citation

Application of Plasma Activated Saline in Wound Treatment

TypeinterventionalSponsorFirst Affiliated Hospital Xi'an Jiaotong UniversityRan2023 to 2024Enrolled162ConditionsWound, Wound Infection, Wound HealArmsplasma activated saline, Routine nursing
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

30 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 51 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. The Chinese guideline for management of snakebites.World journal of emergency medicine · 2024
    Article
  17. Review
  18. Novel cell culture system for monitoring cells during continuous and variable negative-pressure wound therapy.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) · 2023
    Article
  19. Negative-Pressure Wound Therapy: What We Know and What We Need to Know.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2023
    Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

18 authors at 15 institutions in 2 countries.

Dörthe SeidelInstitute for Research in Operative Medicine, University of Witten/Herdecke, Cologne, Germany.
Stephan DiedrichDepartment of General Surgery, Visceral, Thoracic and Vascular Surgery, Greifswald University Hospital, Greifswald, Germany.
Florian HerrleDepartment of Surgery, Medical Faculty Mannheim, University of Heidelberg, Mannheim, Germany.
Henryk ThielemannDepartment of General and Abdominal Surgery, Unfallkrankenhaus Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Frank MaruschDepartment of General and Visceral Surgery, Klinikum Ernst von Bergmann gemeinnützige GmbH, Potsdam, Germany.
Rebekka SchirrenDepartment and Polyclinic of Surgery, Hospital Rechts der Isar -Technical University of Munich, München, Germany.
Recca TalaulicarDepartment of General, Visceral and Pediatric Surgery, University Medical Center Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany.
Tobias GehrigDepartment of General and Visceral Surgery, GRN Klinik Sinsheim, Sinsheim, Germany.
Nadja Lehwald-TywuschikDepartment of Surgery (A), Hospital of the Heinrich-Heine-University Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany.
Matthias GlanemannDepartment of General, Visceral, Vascular and Pediatric Surgery, Saarland University, Homburg, Germany.
Jörg BunseDepartment of General and Visceral Surgery, Sana Klinikum Lichtenberg, Berlin, Germany.
Martin HüttemannDepartment of General and Visceral Surgery, Evangelisches Krankenhaus Oberhausen, Oberhausen, Germany.
Chris BraumannDepartment of General and Visceral Surgery, St Josef-Hospital Bochum, Bochum, Germany.
Oleg HeizmannDepartment of General, Visceral und Thoracic Surgery, Agaplesion Diakonieklinikum Rotenburg gemeinnützige GmbH, Rotenburg (Wümme), Germany.
Marc MiserezDepartment of Abdominal Surgery, University Hospitals Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Thomas KrönertCenter for Vascular Medicine, Department of Vascular Surgery, Thüringen Kliniken Georgius Agricola, Saalfeld, Germany.
Stephan GretschelBrandenburg Medical School,Department of General and Visceral Surgery, University Hospital Neuruppin, Neuruppin, Germany.
Rolf LeferingInstitute for Research in Operative Medicine, University of Witten/Herdecke, Cologne, Germany.
Witten/Herdecke University · DEAgaplesion Diakonieklinikum Rotenburg · DEEvangelisches Krankenhaus Oberhausen · DEHeinrich Heine University Düsseldorf · DEKlinikum Ernst von Bergmann · DEKlinikum rechts der Isar · DEKU Leuven · BEMedizinische Hochschule Brandenburg Theodor Fontane · DESaarland University · DESana Klinikum Lichtenberg · DESt. Josef-Hospital · DEUnfallkrankenhaus Berlin · DEUniversitätsmedizin Göttingen · DEUniversitätsmedizin Greifswald · DEUniversity Medical Centre Mannheim · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) is an established treatment option, but there is no evidence of benefit for subcutaneous abdominal wound healing impairment (SAWHI). Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of NPWT for SAWHI after surgery in clinical practice. Design, Setting, and Participants: The multicenter, multinational, observer-blinded, randomized clinical SAWHI study enrolled patients between August 2, 2011, and January 31, 2018. The last follow-up date was June 11, 2018. The trial included 34 abdominal surgical departments of hospitals in Germany, Belgium, and the Netherlands, and 539 consecutive, compliant adult patients with SAWHI after surgery without fascia dehiscence were randomly assigned to the treatment arms in a 1:1 ratio stratified by study site and wound size using a centralized web-based tool. A total of 507 study participants (NPWT, 256; CWT, 251) were assessed for the primary end point in the modified intention-to-treat (ITT) population. Interventions: Negative pressure wound therapy and conventional wound treatment (CWT). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was time until wound closure (delayed primary closure or by secondary intention) within 42 days. Safety analysis comprised the adverse events (AEs). Secondary outcomes included wound closure rate, quality of life (SF-36), pain, and patient satisfaction. Results: Of the 507 study participants included in the modified ITT population, 287 were men (56.6%) (NPWT, 155 [60.5%] and CWT, 132 [52.6%]) and 220 were women (43.4%) (NPWT, 101 [39.5%] and CWT 119 [47.4%]). The median (IQR) age of the participants was 66 (18) years in the NPWT arm and 66 (20) years in the CWT arm. Mean time to wound closure was significantly shorter in the NPWT arm (36.1 days) than in the CWT arm (39.1 days) (difference, 3.0 days; 95% CI 1.6-4.4; P < .001). Wound closure rate within 42 days was significantly higher with NPWT (35.9%) than with CWT (21.5%) (difference, 14.4%; 95% CI, 6.6%-22.2%; P < .001). In the therapy-compliant population, excluding study participants with unauthorized treatment changes (NPWT, 22; CWT, 50), the risk for wound-related AEs was higher in the NPWT arm (risk ratio, 1.51; 95% CI, 0.99-2.35). Conclusions and Relevance: Negative pressure wound therapy is an effective treatment option for SAWHI after surgery; however, it causes more wound-related AEs. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01528033.

Indexed as

Abdominal Wound Closure TechniquesNegative-Pressure Wound TherapyAdultAgedAged, 80 and overBelgiumFemaleGermanyHumansMaleMiddle AgedNetherlandsSubcutaneous TissueTreatment OutcomeWound Healing

Identifiers

PMID32293657
PMCPMC7160755
OpenAlexW3016106079

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.