SynthesisInternational wound journal2023
Wound dehiscence in enhanced recovery after open radical cystectomy: A meta-analysis.
Synthesis in International wound journal, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It has been retracted, and should not be counted. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Wound dehiscence in enhanced recovery after open radical cystectomy: A meta-analysis.International wound journal · 2023Pooled it
- RETRACTION: Wound Dehiscence in Enhanced Recovery After OpenRadical Cystectomy: A Meta-Analysis.International wound journal · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Retraction · 2025-02-11Author Unresponsive · Compromised Peer Review · Investigation by Journal/Publisher ·
- Retracted
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A meta-analysis study to assess the outcome of enhanced recovery (ER) after radical cystectomy (RC) on wound dehiscence was performed. A comprehensive literature examination till January 2023 was implemented and 1457 linked studies were appraised. The picked studies contained 772 open RC subjects in the picked studies' baseline, 436 of them were enhanced recovery after RC, and 336 were open RC. Odds ratio (OR) in addition to 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used to calculate the consequence of enhanced recovery after RC on wound dehiscence after open RC by the dichotomous styles and a fixed or random model. The ER after RC caused significantly lower wound dehiscence (OR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.30-0.89, P = .02) with low heterogeneity (I
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.