SynthesisBJS open2022
The clinical effectiveness of wound edge protectors in reducing surgical site infection after abdominal surgery: meta-analysis.
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.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Role of wound protectors in preventing surgical site infection in patients undergoing abdominal surgery: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.BMC surgery · 2025Pooled it
- Effect of wound protectors in reducing the incidence of surgical site wound infection in lower gastrointestinal surgery: A meta-analysis.International wound journal · 2023Pooled it
- Effect of a wound protector on soft-tissue injury and early recovery after endoscopic direct anterior approach total hip arthroplasty: a randomized controlled trial.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2026Trial
- Implementation of an SSI care bundle for patients undergoing emergency laparotomy.Infection prevention in practice · 2026Article
- Infection control and wound care innovations in plastic surgery: a multidisciplinary approach.Folia microbiologica · 2026Review
- Low-cost wound protector for laparoscopic surgeries.Revista do Colegio Brasileiro de Cirurgioes · 2024Article
- The efficacy of wound edge protectors in reducing the post-operative surgical site infections after abdominal surgery: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical studies.Wideochirurgia i inne techniki maloinwazyjne = Videosurgery and other miniinvasive techniques · 2023Article
- THE EFFECT OF SKIN ANTISEPSIS AFTER PRIMARY SKIN CLOSURE ON THE INCIDENCE OF SURGICAL SITE INFECTION AFTER ABDOMINAL SURGERY FOR SEPSIS: A PRELIMINARY REPORT OF A RANDOMISED CONTROLLED TRIAL.Annals of Ibadan postgraduate medicine · 2023Article
- Preparing the Bowel (Microbiome) for Surgery: Surgical Bioresilience.Clinics in colon and rectal surgery · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.