SynthesisMedicine2021
Modified Robert Jones Bandage in reducing blood loss in total knee arthroplasty: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis in Medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe purpose of this meta-analysis was to assess the effects of Modified Robert Jones Bandage (MRJB) in primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA).
methodsPubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Google Scholar were systematically searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). All RCTs were compared to receive either MRJB (study group) or conventional wound dressing (control group) in TKA. Statistical analysis was assessed using RevMan 5.3 software.
resultsA total of 5 RCTs involving 362 patients were included in the meta-analysis. No significant difference between the 2 groups was found in terms of total blood loss (Mean difference [MD], -25.41; 95% confidence interval [CI], -90.52 to 39.70; P = .44), intra-operative blood loss (MD, -13.77; 95% CI, -31.84 to 4.29; P = .14), drain blood loss (MD, 0.83; 95% CI, -30.07 to 31.72; P = .96), and transfusion rate (risk ratio, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.55-1.64; P = .86); There was also no significant difference in terms of range of motion (MD, -0.93; 95% CI, -3.64 to 1.79; P = .50), visual analog scale pain sores (MD, -0.02; 95% CI, -0.34 to 0.30; P = .90), and operative time (MD, -3.12; 95% CI, -13.42 to 7.18; P = .55), without increasing the risk of wound-related complications (risk ratio, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.27-2.08; P = .58) in both groups. No deep venous thrombosis occurred in all studies.
conclusionsThe current meta-analysis of the available evidence indicates patients with MRJB had not required the additional advantage compared to the conventional wound dressing for TKA. However, more high-quality studies are needed to confirm the above conclusions. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level I, therapeutic study.
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.