Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33723634›Full record

SynthesisInternational journal of colorectal disease2021

Prophylactic subcutaneous drainage reduces post-operative incisional infections in colorectal surgeries: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Kai Pang, Peilin Sun, Jun Li, Na Zeng, Xiaobao Yang, Lei Jin, Yingchi Yang, Lan Jin, Hongwei Yao, Zhongtao Zhang

Abstract readMeta-Analysis
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in International journal of colorectal disease, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 25% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Kai Pang *Department of General Surgery, Beijing Friendship Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing Key Laboratory of Cancer Invasion and Metastasis Research and National Clinical Research Center for Digestive Diseases, 95 Yong-an Road, Xi-Cheng District, Beijing, 100050, China.
Peilin Sun *Peking Union Medical College, PUMC, Beijing, 100730, China.
Jun Li *Department of General Surgery, Beijing Friendship Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing Key Laboratory of Cancer Invasion and Metastasis Research and National Clinical Research Center for Digestive Diseases, 95 Yong-an Road, Xi-Cheng District, Beijing, 100050, China.
Na ZengDepartment of Methodology and Statistics, Beijing Friendship Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing Key Laboratory of Cancer Invasion and Metastasis Research and National Clinical Research Center for Digestive Diseases, Beijing, 100050, China.
Xiaobao YangDepartment of General Surgery, Beijing Friendship Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing Key Laboratory of Cancer Invasion and Metastasis Research and National Clinical Research Center for Digestive Diseases, 95 Yong-an Road, Xi-Cheng District, Beijing, 100050, China.
Lei JinDepartment of General Surgery, Beijing Friendship Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing Key Laboratory of Cancer Invasion and Metastasis Research and National Clinical Research Center for Digestive Diseases, 95 Yong-an Road, Xi-Cheng District, Beijing, 100050, China.
Yingchi YangDepartment of General Surgery, Beijing Friendship Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing Key Laboratory of Cancer Invasion and Metastasis Research and National Clinical Research Center for Digestive Diseases, 95 Yong-an Road, Xi-Cheng District, Beijing, 100050, China. yangyingchi@ccmu.edu.cn.
Lan JinDepartment of General Surgery, Beijing Friendship Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing Key Laboratory of Cancer Invasion and Metastasis Research and National Clinical Research Center for Digestive Diseases, 95 Yong-an Road, Xi-Cheng District, Beijing, 100050, China. jinlan@ccmu.edu.cn.
Hongwei YaoDepartment of General Surgery, Beijing Friendship Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing Key Laboratory of Cancer Invasion and Metastasis Research and National Clinical Research Center for Digestive Diseases, 95 Yong-an Road, Xi-Cheng District, Beijing, 100050, China.
Zhongtao ZhangDepartment of General Surgery, Beijing Friendship Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing Key Laboratory of Cancer Invasion and Metastasis Research and National Clinical Research Center for Digestive Diseases, 95 Yong-an Road, Xi-Cheng District, Beijing, 100050, China. zhangzht@ccmu.edu.cn.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4718-6821
Capital Medical University · CNChinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDue to lack of high-level evidences, prophylactic subcutaneous drainage has so far not been recommended in relevant guidelines as a countermeasure against incisional infections. This meta-analysis aims to clarify the efficacy of subcutaneous drainage in reducing incisional infections in colorectal surgeries.

methodsCochrane Library, Embase, and PubMed were searched for randomized controlled trials comparing the incidence rate of incisional infections between patients receiving prophylactic subcutaneous drainage (interventions) and those not receiving (controls) after digestive surgeries. Results from included RCTs were pooled multiple times according to different surgical types. Heterogeneity, publication bias, and certainty of evidences were estimated.

resultsEight randomized controlled trials were included. Three RCTs each included patients receiving all sorts of digestive surgeries (gastrointestinal, hepatobiliary, and pancreatic); pooled incisional infection rates between the drainage group and the control group were not significantly different (RR = 0.76, 95%CI: 0.48-1.21, p = 0.25). Four RCTs included patients receiving colorectal surgeries; pooled incisional infection rate in the drainage group was significantly lower than that in the control group (RR = 0.34, 95%CI: 0.19-0.61, p = 0.0004). Four RCTs included patients receiving upper GI and/or HBP surgeries; pooled incisional infection rates in the drainage group and the non-drainage group were not significantly different (RR = 0.85, 95%CI: 0.54-1.34, p = 0.49).

conclusionsProphylactic subcutaneous drainage significantly reduces post-operative incisional infections in colorectal surgeries but was not efficacious in digestive surgeries in general.

Indexed as

Colorectal NeoplasmsDigestive System Surgical ProceduresDrainageHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSurgical Wound InfectionColorectalIncisional infectionMeta-analysisSubcutaneous drainageSurgery

Identifiers

PMID33723634
OpenAlexW3136954016

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.