ArticlePloS one2022
Comparison of the effect of skin closure materials on skin closure during cesarean delivery.
Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Rapid Superficial Dehiscence After Cesarean Delivery in the Setting of Maternal Inflammation and Trauma: A Case Report.Reports (MDPI) · 2026Article
- Comparison of complications and surgery outcomes in skin closure methods following cesarean sections.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2025Article
- Comparison of Three Techniques for Skin Closure in Caesarean Delivery (Absorbable Subcuticular Sutures, Non-absorbable Nylon Sutures, Surgical Staplers): A Randomized Controlled Trial.Journal of obstetrics and gynaecology of India · 2025Article
- Evidence-based surgical procedures to optimize caesarean outcomes: an overview of systematic reviews.EClinicalMedicine · 2024Review
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the effect of skin closure materials on skin closure during cesarean delivery.
methodsWe searched EMBASE、PubMed、Scopus、Cochrane CENTRAL for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the use of closure materials for skin closing effect during cesarean delivery. The outcomes were time to skin closure of dermal and epidermal layer, skin separation rate and wound complications(wound infection, hematoma,seroma, reclosure, readmission) reported as an odds ratio (OR) and surface under the cumulative ranking curve analysis (SUCRA) score.
resultsTwenty -six RCTs met the inclusion criteria. In the network meta-analysis (NMA) for time to skin closure of dermal and epidermal layer, pooled network OR values indicated that staple (network SMD, -337.50; 95% CrI: -416.99 to -263.18) was superior to absorbable suture. In the Skin separation NMA, pooled network OR values indicated that the absorbable suture (network OR, 0.37; 95% CrI: 0.19 to 0.70) were superior to staple. In the wound complications NMA, pooled network OR values indicated that the no interventions were superior to staple.
conclusionIn conclusion, our network meta-analysis showed that the risk of skin separation with absorbable suture after cesarean delivery was reduced compared with staple, and does not increase the risk of wound complications, but the wound closure time would slightly prolonged.
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.