Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35543265›Full record

SynthesisBJS open2022

The clinical effectiveness of wound edge protectors in reducing surgical site infection after abdominal surgery: meta-analysis.

Xujia Li, Haomin Lin, Lin Zhu, Jing Chen, Sujuan Lei, Bo Li, Song Su

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BJS open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.8field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Low-cost wound protector for laparoscopic surgeries.Revista do Colegio Brasileiro de Cirurgioes · 2024
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
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

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Xujia LiDepartment of General Surgery (Hepatobiliary Surgery), The Affiliated Hospital of Southwest Medical University, Luzhou, Sichuan, China.
Haomin LinDepartment of General Surgery (Hepatobiliary Surgery), The Affiliated Hospital of Southwest Medical University, Luzhou, Sichuan, China.
Lin ZhuDepartment of General Surgery (Hepatobiliary Surgery), The Affiliated Hospital of Southwest Medical University, Luzhou, Sichuan, China.
Jing ChenDepartment of General Surgery (Hepatobiliary Surgery), The Affiliated Hospital of Southwest Medical University, Luzhou, Sichuan, China.
Sujuan LeiDepartment of General Surgery (Hepatobiliary Surgery), The Affiliated Hospital of Southwest Medical University, Luzhou, Sichuan, China.
Bo LiDepartment of General Surgery (Hepatobiliary Surgery), The Affiliated Hospital of Southwest Medical University, Luzhou, Sichuan, China.
Song SuDepartment of General Surgery (Hepatobiliary Surgery), The Affiliated Hospital of Southwest Medical University, Luzhou, Sichuan, China.
Affiliated Hospital of Southwest Medical University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSurgical site infection (SSI) is a common complication after abdominal surgery. The effectiveness of wound edge protectors in reducing infection of the surgical sites is still unclear. The purpose of this study was to determine the clinical effectiveness of a wound edge protector (WEP) in reducing SSI rates after abdominal surgery.

methodsPubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library were systematically searched to obtain relevant articles published up to September 2021. Publications were retrieved if they contain primary data on the use of WEPs in reducing SSI compared with standard care in patients undergoing abdominal surgery. Subgroup analyses were performed for different WEP types, surgical sites, and levels of contamination. The outcome of interest was a clinically defined SSI. Qualitative variables were pooled using risk ratios (RRs).

resultsTwenty-two eligible randomized clinical trials involving 4492 patients were included in this meta-analysis. WEP was associated with the reduced incidence of overall SSI (RR = 0.66; 95 per cent c.i. 0.53 to 0.83; P = 0.0003), and superficial SSI (RR = 0.59; 95 per cent c.i. 0.38 to 0.91; P = 0.02). In addition, WEP also successfully reduced the risk of SSI in clean-contaminated wounds (RR = 0.61; 95 per cent c.i. 0.40 to 0.93; P = 0.02) as well as in contaminated wounds (RR = 0.47; 95 per cent c.i. 0.33 to 0.67; P < 0.0001); however, WEP did not reduce SSI incidence in colorectal surgery (RR = 0.68; 95 per cent c.i. 0.46 to 1.01; P = 0.05).

conclusionThis study suggests that WEP was efficient in reducing superficial SSI. Both double-ringed and single-ringed devices were efficient in reducing SSI. WEP was effective in reducing SSI incidence in clean-contaminated and contaminated surgery; however, its use does not reduce the SSI rate in colorectal surgery.

Indexed as

Digestive System Surgical ProceduresSurgical Wound InfectionHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicTreatment OutcomeWound Healing

Identifiers

PMID35543265
PMCPMC9092446
OpenAlexW4226442056

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.