ArticlePrzeglad menopauzalny = Menopause review2020
Abandoning the blind legacy passed on horde of routine intra-abdominal drain insertion in cesarean section.
Article in Przeglad menopauzalny = Menopause review, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionCesarean section (CS) delivery is the most common major obstetrical surgical operation carried out in and is increasing in incidence throughout the world. The major involves some risks that might include: infection, coagulation problem, loss of blood, bowel or bladder injury, abnormalities of the placenta in subsequent pregnancies. AIM OF THE STUDY: To evaluate the clinical effectiveness of postoperative CS intra-abdominal drain insertion. MATERIAL AND
methodsA prospective study was conducted on 245 patients in labor, at the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Jordan University Hospital, between January 2017 and January 2018. Participants were divided into two groups: group I including those who had abdominal drains insertion during surgery and group II including women who had no abdominal drain inserted before closure. All patients on both groups were term pregnancies, underwent elective vs. emergency CS, and had no subcutaneous drains inserted.
resultsClinical and surgical parameters were comparable in both groups. Postoperative hospital stay was significantly shorter in group II, whereas specific postoperative complication rate was significantly higher in group I. Drain site infection was noted in 2 (1.6%), organ herniation in 2 (1.6%), drain avulsion in 2 (1.6%), severe pain at the site of insertion in 2 (1.6%) patients.
conclusionsRoutine prophylactic intra-abdominal drain insertion post CS has no benefits and therefore should be stopped.
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.