ReviewJPRAS open2023
Management of Incisional Self-Harm of the Upper Limb: A Systematic Review.
Review in JPRAS open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. 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.
- Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The incidence of incisional self-harm of the upper limbs is increasing, and recurrence rates are high. It is not known whether different wound treatment strategies (dressings only vs. surgery) or the operative setting (main theatre vs. non-main theatre) affect wound or mental health-related outcomes. Methods: Four electronic databases (Ovid MEDLINE, OVID EMBASE, PsycINFO and CENTRAL) were searched from inception to 14/09/2021 for studies which describe the management of incisional self-harm wounds of the upper limb(s) in adults and children. Dual-author screening and data extraction were conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Results: In total, 19 studies (1477 patients) were included. Overall, the evidence was limited by a paucity of comparative data on wound management strategy and setting, and poor-quality outcome reporting. Only four studies clearly identified the operative setting for definitive wound management (two in main operating theatres, one in the emergency department and one using both settings, depending on injury severity). Few studies inconsistently reported surgical outcomes (n=9) or mental health outcomes (n=4), hindering evidence synthesis. Conclusion: Further investigation is needed to determine the most cost-effective management strategies and settings for these injuries.
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.