Trial reportWorld journal of surgery2022
Validation of a Manual Negative Pressure Wound Therapy Device (PragmaVAC) for Acute and Chronic Wounds: A Prospective, Randomized, Controlled Trial.
Trial report in World journal of surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Treatment of a Large Gluteal Hydatid Cyst in Syria Using a Manual Negative Pressure Wound Therapy Device (PragmaVAC).Avicenna journal of medicine · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
16 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNegative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) is an alternative to the standard gauze dressings for wound treatment. Due to limited health resources, poor electrical supply, and high costs, NPWT in resource-constrained settings is inaccessible. In conflict-affected settings, civilian injuries typically involve traumatic wounds or chronic wound infections that affect the extremities.
methodsPragmaVAC
resultsFifty-nine patients qualified for analysis (19 Gauze; 40 PragmaVAC). The mean age of participants was 49.25 years, 55.9% were male, and 42.4% were diabetic. Forty three wounds (72.9%) were acute, 44 wounds (74.6%) were clean-contaminated, and 34 wounds (57.6%) were localized to the lower limb. The average duration of treatment was 15.3 days in PragmaVAC vs 36.5 days in control, p = 0.013. Similarly, PragmaVAC required fewer number of dressing changes 2.7 vs 23.2 times, p < 0.0001, at a lower frequency of dressings 0.22/day vs 0.73/day, in the control group, p < 0.0001.
conclusionsPragmaVAC is associated with accelerated healing and less frequent requirement of dressing changes. The introduction of a manually operated, low-cost device in resource-constrained settings presents an opportunity to improve wound care outcomes, decrease interventions, and optimize usage of material and human resources.
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.