Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36741661›Full record

ArticleCureus2023

The Optimal Hemostasis Duration After Tooth Extraction: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Navaneeth Yerragudi, Jitendra G Chawla, Vinoth K Kalidoss, Swapnika Polineni, Cheranjeevi Jayam, Chaitanya Kumar

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cureus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06687824 (Evaluation of the Effect of Black Tea Extract-Impregnated Gauze on Primary Bleeding Cessation After Molar Extraction), which is not on this map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

NCT06687824 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2024, after this paper: background citation

Evaluation of the Effect of Black Tea Extract-Impregnated Gauze on Primary Bleeding Cessation After Molar Extraction: A Randomized Controlled Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorManipal University College MalaysiaRan2024 to 2024Enrolled44ConditionsExtracted SocketArmsBlack Tea Extract, 0.5% Povidone Iodine Impregnated Sterile Gauze
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
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

6 authors.

Navaneeth YerragudiDepartment of Dentistry, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Mangalagiri, Mangalagiri, IND.
Jitendra G ChawlaDepartment of Dentistry, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Mangalagiri, Mangalagiri, IND.
Vinoth K KalidossDepartment of Community and Family Medicine, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Mangalagiri, Mangalagiri, IND.
Swapnika PolineniDepartment of Dentistry, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Mangalagiri, Mangalagiri, IND.
Cheranjeevi JayamDepartment of Dentistry, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Mangalagiri, Mangalagiri, IND.
Chaitanya KumarDepartment of Transfusion Medicine and Hemotherapy, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Mangalagiri, Mangalagiri, IND.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background There is a lack of evidence-based practice regarding the duration of pressure pack placement following tooth extraction. This study aimed to compare the incidence of post-extraction bleeding following 60 minutes versus 10 minutes of pressure pack placement. Methodology A randomized controlled trial was conducted at a tertiary care hospital and included patients requiring intra-alveolar tooth extractions. Patients were randomly allocated into the experimental group or control group by a permuted block randomization method. A blinded observer noted the incidence of post-extraction bleeding. Categorical variables were summarized as frequency and percentage. The chi-square test was used for intergroup statistical analysis. P-values <0.05 were considered statistically significant. Results There were 528 participants, 264 of whom were allocated to each group. The incidence of post-extraction bleeding was 8% and 6.8% in the experimental and control groups, respectively. On bivariate analysis, there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups (p = 0.618; relative risk with 95% confidence interval = 1.0). Conclusions In the majority of cases, hemostasis was achieved in 10 minutes. Therefore, removing the pressure pack after 10 minutes may be advised to ensure hemostasis and, ultimately, save chairside time.

Indexed as

bleedingblood clottinghemostasissurgical hemostasistooth extraction

Identifiers

PMID36741661
PMCPMC9895223

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.