Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33299355›Full record

Trial reportCancer management and research2020

The Effect of Low and High Vacuum Drainage on the Postoperative Drainage of Breast Cancer: Insights from a Prospective, Non-Inferiority, Randomized Clinical Trial.

Wanyi Lin, Yaping Yang, Wenjing Zhong, Qun Lin, Nanyan Rao, Gehao Liang, Yun Ling, Zihao Liu, Qing Luo, Zhenluan Tian and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract readCase ReportsClinical Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Cancer management and research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 29% 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Wanyi Lin *Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Malignant Tumor Epigenetics and Gene Regulation, Sun Yat-Sen Memorial Hospital, Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou 510120, People's Republic of China.
Yaping Yang *Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Malignant Tumor Epigenetics and Gene Regulation, Sun Yat-Sen Memorial Hospital, Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou 510120, People's Republic of China.ORCID 0000-0001-7158-8807
Wenjing ZhongGuangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Malignant Tumor Epigenetics and Gene Regulation, Sun Yat-Sen Memorial Hospital, Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou 510120, People's Republic of China.
Qun LinGuangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Malignant Tumor Epigenetics and Gene Regulation, Sun Yat-Sen Memorial Hospital, Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou 510120, People's Republic of China.
Nanyan RaoGuangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Malignant Tumor Epigenetics and Gene Regulation, Sun Yat-Sen Memorial Hospital, Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou 510120, People's Republic of China.
Gehao LiangGuangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Malignant Tumor Epigenetics and Gene Regulation, Sun Yat-Sen Memorial Hospital, Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou 510120, People's Republic of China.
Yun LingGuangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Malignant Tumor Epigenetics and Gene Regulation, Sun Yat-Sen Memorial Hospital, Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou 510120, People's Republic of China.
Zihao LiuGuangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Malignant Tumor Epigenetics and Gene Regulation, Sun Yat-Sen Memorial Hospital, Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou 510120, People's Republic of China.
Qing LuoGuangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Malignant Tumor Epigenetics and Gene Regulation, Sun Yat-Sen Memorial Hospital, Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou 510120, People's Republic of China.
Zhenluan TianGuangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Malignant Tumor Epigenetics and Gene Regulation, Sun Yat-Sen Memorial Hospital, Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou 510120, People's Republic of China.
Chang GongGuangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Malignant Tumor Epigenetics and Gene Regulation, Sun Yat-Sen Memorial Hospital, Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou 510120, People's Republic of China.
Sun Yat-sen University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundVacuum drains have been extensively applied to prevent seroma formation after breast surgery. However, the usage of negative suction drainage is mainly determined by surgeon's experience and preferences. The aim of this study is to prospectively compare the drain effect after breast surgery between the low and high vacuum drains.

methodsThis prospectively randomized trial (from January 2018 to June 2019) involved 188 patients who were subjected to modified radical mastectomy (group A, n=128) or immediate breast reconstruction with implants (group B, n=60). In each group, patients were randomized to receive high vacuum drain (pressure=-98 kPa) or low vacuum drain (pressure=-12 kPa) after surgery. Days of drain permanence, which means the duration of drainage, was the primary endpoint.

resultsAccording to the comparison of days of drain permanence, the effect of a low vacuum drain is not inferior to a high vacuum drain in group A (pectoral drain,

conclusionThe drain effect of the low vacuum drain is not inferior to a high vacuum drain in both group A and group B. The low vacuum drain was effective, relatively cheap, and did not increase the incidence of complications; it is therefore more recommended after breast surgery.

Indexed as

breast surgerydays of drain permanencepostoperative drain

Identifiers

PMID33299355
PMCPMC7721110
OpenAlexW3108503358

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.