ArticleInternational wound journal2020
Outcomes of incisional negative pressure wound therapy following brachiobasilic transposition arteriovenous fistula creation: A 1:2 propensity score matched study.
Article in International wound journal, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Outcomes of incisional negative pressure wound therapy following brachiobasilic transposition arteriovenous fistula creation: A 1:2 propensity score matched study.International wound journal · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Incisional negative wound pressure therapy (iNPWT) use on closed incisions has been shown to improve wound outcomes, but no studies have evaluated the use of iNPWT following brachiobasilic transposition arteriovenous fistula (BBT-AVF). We aim to investigate the efficacy of iNPWT vs conventional wound therapy in reducing surgical site infections (SSIs) for BBT-AVF incisions. This is a retrospective cohort study of patients who underwent BBT-AVF creation between January 2010 and December 2017. A 1:2 propensity score matching (PSM) was performed to reduce selection bias and address for confounding factors. Study outcomes included SSI and haematoma incidence, 30-day readmission, and 30-day mortality. A total of 154 patients were reviewed in this study: 47 (30.5%) had iNPWT and 107 (69.5%) had conventional wound therapy. The overall median age was 60.5 (interquartile range 54-69). PSM with a 1:2 ratio resulted in a total of 117 patients (39 iNPWT and 78 conventional wound therapy). In the unmatched cohort, SSI incidence was lower in the iNPWT group (n = 1/47 [2.1%] vs n = 14/107 [13.1%], P = .035). However, incidence of SSI was comparable between iNPWT and conventional wound therapy after matching (n = 1/39 [2.6%] vs n = 9/78 [11.5%], P = .102). There was no significant difference in 30-day readmission and 30-day mortality. Within our study population of patients with BBT-AVF incisions, there is a non-statistically significant reduction in SSI incidence for patients who received iNPWT as compared with conventional wound therapy. Further prospective randomised controlled studies should be conducted to validate these findings.
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.