Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36821724›Full record

SynthesisBJS open2023

Optimal primary wound closure methods after thyroid and parathyroid surgery: network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.

Matthew G Davey, Ferdia Browne, Martin S Davey, Stewart R Walsh, Michael J Kerin, Aoife J Lowery

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic ReviewNetwork Meta-Analysis
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BJS open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 22% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. A prospective study to assess cervical scar satisfaction following conventional open thyroidectomy for thyroid cancer.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2024
    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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

Matthew G DaveyDiscipline of Surgery, The Lambe Institute for Translational Research, National University of Ireland, Galway, Galway H91 YR71, Ireland.
Ferdia BrowneDiscipline of Surgery, The Lambe Institute for Translational Research, National University of Ireland, Galway, Galway H91 YR71, Ireland.
Martin S DaveyDiscipline of Surgery, The Lambe Institute for Translational Research, National University of Ireland, Galway, Galway H91 YR71, Ireland.ORCID 0000-0002-9892-9920
Stewart R WalshDiscipline of Surgery, The Lambe Institute for Translational Research, National University of Ireland, Galway, Galway H91 YR71, Ireland.
Michael J KerinDiscipline of Surgery, The Lambe Institute for Translational Research, National University of Ireland, Galway, Galway H91 YR71, Ireland.ORCID 0000-0003-4164-5561
Aoife J LoweryDiscipline of Surgery, The Lambe Institute for Translational Research, National University of Ireland, Galway, Galway H91 YR71, Ireland.
Ollscoil na Gaillimhe – University of Galway · IE

Funding

National Breast Cancer Research Institute
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAt present, there is no consensus on optimal neck wound closure methods after thyroid and parathyroid surgery. The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review and network meta-analysis of RCTs evaluating the optimal neck closure method after thyroid and parathyroid surgery.

methodsA frequentist random-effects network meta-analysis was performed for RCTs comparing at least two closure methods according to PRISMA-network meta-analysis guidelines. Analysis was performed using R packages and Shiny.

resultsEighteen RCTs evaluating six closure methods (that is adhesive (28.5 per cent, 404 patients), absorbable subcuticular suture (18.1 per cent, 257 patients), non-absorbable subcuticular suture (16.8 per cent, 238 patients), staples (26.3 per cent, 372 patients), steristrips (8.1 per cent, 115 patients), and conventional suture (2.1 per cent, 30 patients)) in 1416 patients were included. At network meta-analysis, there was no difference in complication, infection, dehiscence, or haematoma rates irrespective of closure method used. Staples reduced closure duration versus absorbable subcuticular suture (mean difference (MD) 8.50, 95 per cent c.i. 6.90 to 10.10) and non-absorbable subcuticular suture (MD 0.30, 95 per cent c.i. 0.23 to 0.37), whereas adhesives (MD -1.05, 95 per cent c.i. -1.31 to -0.79) reduced closure time relative to staples. Cosmesis was improved after non-absorbable subcuticular suture (odds ratio (OR) 3.41, 95 per cent c.i. 1.66 to 7.00) relative to staples. Staples reduced patient satisfaction (OR 0.04, 95 per cent c.i. 0.00 to 0.33) and ability to shower (OR 0.04, 95 per cent c.i. 0.00 to 0.33) relative to adhesives.

conclusionDespite staples decreasing closure times, this advantage is offset by reduced patient satisfaction, ability to shower, and cosmesis compared with patients with wounds closed using adhesives, absorbable subcuticular suture, and non-absorbable subcuticular suture. Therefore, these closure methods are favourable for closing neck wounds due to more acceptable patient-reported outcomes, without compromising the safety of the procedure.

Indexed as

Suture TechniquesThyroid GlandHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicWound Closure Techniques

Identifiers

PMID36821724
PMCPMC9949711
OpenAlexW4321607917

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.