SynthesisBJS open2021
Single-use negative-pressure wound therapy versus conventional dressings for closed surgical incisions: systematic literature review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BJS open, 2021. 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 17 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Randomized comparative clinical study between two treatment strategies in patients with pilonidal sinus: conventional care versus negative pressure therapy.
Prevention of Postoperative Complications by Negative Pressure Therapy After Complex Breast Cancer Surgery: a Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial
Who cites it
17 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 35 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Two Negative Pressure Wound Therapy Devices to Manage Cesarean Section Incisions.American journal of perinatology · 2024Pooled it
- Surgical site infection outcomes of two different closed incision negative pressure therapy systems in cardiac surgery: Systematic review and meta-analysis.International wound journal · 2024Pooled it
- Negative pressure wound therapy compared with conventional wound dressings for closed incisions in orthopaedic trauma surgery: A meta-analysis.International wound journal · 2022Pooled it
- A prospective randomized study that compares three different dressings for the prevention of surgical site infections following major heart surgery.Scientific reports · 2025Trial
- Modification to the PICO Single Use Negative Pressure Wound Therapy System Application to Improve Patient Experience in Total Hip and Knee Arthroplasty.International wound journal · 2026Article
- [Single-use negative pressure therapy for prevention of wound healing disorders for primarily closed incisions : International consensus and practical recommendations for Germany].Chirurgie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2026Review
- Efficacy and Economic Impact of PICO-7 Dressings in Preventing Surgical Site Infections After Posterior Lumbar Fusion: A Matched Case-Control Study.International journal of spine surgery · 2026Article
- Article
- Underrecognized Interaction Between PICO Dressings and Pacemakers: A Case From the ICU.Case reports in anesthesiology · 2026Article
- Closed-Incision Negative Pressure Therapy: Scoping Review and Multidisciplinary Consensus Recommendations of the Spanish Observatory of Infection in Surgery.International wound journal · 2025Article
- Article
- Prophylactic Use of Negative Pressure Wound Therapy in High-risk Patients Undergoing Oncoplastic and Reconstructive Breast Surgery.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2023Article
- Influence of Closed-incision Negative Pressure Wound Therapy on Abdominal Site Complications in Autologous Breast Reconstruction.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2023Article
- Strategies to prevent surgical site infections in acute-care hospitals: 2022 Update.Infection control and hospital epidemiology · 2023Article
- Closed Incision Negative Pressure Therapy versus Standard of Care in Reduction of Surgical Site Complications: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2023Article
- Closed Incision Negative Pressure Therapy vs Standard of Care Dressing in Breast Surgery: A Systematic Review.Cureus · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSurgical-site complications (SSCs) remain a significant cause of morbidity and mortality, particularly in high-risk patients. The aim of this study was to determine whether prophylactic use of a specific single-use negative-pressure wound therapy (sNPWT) device reduced the incidence of SSCs after closed surgical incisions compared with conventional dressings.
methodsA systematic literature review was performed using MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Library to identify articles published from January 2011 to August 2018. RCTs and observational studies comparing PICO™ sNPWT with conventional dressings, with at least 10 patients in each treatment arm, were included. Meta-analyses were performed to determine odds ratios (ORs) or mean differences (MDs), as appropriate. PRISMA guidelines were followed. The primary outcome was surgical-site infection (SSI). Secondary outcomes were other SSCs and hospital efficiencies. Risk of bias was assessed.
resultsOf 6197 citations screened, 29 studies enrolling 5614 patients were included in the review; all studies included patients with risk factors for SSCs. sNPWT reduced the number of SSIs (OR 0.37, 95 per cent c.i. 0.28 to 0.50; number needed to treat (NNT) 20). sNPWT reduced the odds of wound dehiscence (OR 0.70, 0.53 to 0.92; NNT 26), seroma (OR 0.23, 0.11 to 0.45; NNT 13) and necrosis (OR 0.11, 0.03 to 0.39; NNT 12). Mean length of hospital stay was shorter in patients who underwent sNPWT (MD -1.75, 95 per cent c.i. -2.69 to -0.81).
conclusionUse of the sNPWT device in patients with risk factors reduced the incidence of SSCs and the mean length of hospital stay.
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.