ArticleAnnals of medicine and surgery (2012)2020
The surgical management of cutaneous abscesses: A UK cross-sectional survey.
Article in Annals of medicine and surgery (2012), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- A hand-washing community-based educational intervention to reduce abscess incidence among people who inject drugs: a cluster randomised controlled clinical trial protocol (the HAWA study protocol).BMC public health · 2024Article
- Management of subcutaneous abscesses: prospective cross-sectional study (MAGIC).The British journal of surgery · 2024Article
- Validation of an Educational Tool for Skin Abscess Incision and Drainage by Delphi and Angoff Methods.Journal of general internal medicine · 2023Article
- The effect of anaesthetic use on healing in sub cutaneous abscess management: a retrospective before and after cohort study.Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England · 2023Article
- Ambulatory Pathway for the Management of Superficial Abscesses: Criteria for Safe Provision of Care.Cureus · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimCutaneous abscesses are one of the most common acute general surgery presentations. This study aimed to understand the current practice in the management of cutaneous abscesses in the United Kingdom (UK), once the decision has been made that acute surgical incision and drainage (I&D) is required.
methodGeneral surgeons from across the UK were surveyed on their opinions on the optimum management of cutaneous abscesses. Outcomes measured included anaesthesia, incision technique, antibiotic administration, departmental abscess pathways, and post-drainage management. A combination of Likert scales, multiple-choice questions, and short answer questions were used. Comparisons were made of Likert scales between regions using a two-sample independent
resultsSixty-one responses were collected from surgeons throughout the UK. Of these respondents, 69% indicated that cutaneous abscesses would always or usually require a General Anaesthetic (GA) for treatment, and 82% indicated that abscesses were at least sometimes not treated until the next day due to a lack of resources. While 79% of surgeons stated that pus swabs are always or are usually taken, 44% of respondents never or rarely chased the results. The main indications for giving antibiotics were sepsis/systemically unwell patients, and cellulitis. 31% of responding centres had an abscess management protocol, and 82% of respondents confirmed that they would always pack the abscess wound post-operatively.
conclusion'Incision and drainage' is currently the most widely used technique for the surgical management of cutaneous abscess. However, this study demonstrates the significant variability in the use of anaesthesia, antibiotics, packing and the use of protocols to guide and streamline patient management.
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.