ReviewCureus2023
The Efficacy of Antiseptic Treatment of Surgical Drains on Bacterial Colonisation and Surgical Site Infection Post Breast Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cureus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
- Optimizing perioperative care in autologous breast reconstruction: a narrative review.Gland surgery · 2026Review
- Monitoring and Management of Infection following Prepectoral Implant-based Breast Reconstruction: Retrospective Analysis of Conservative Treatment Versus Implant Removal.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Surgical site infection (SSI) is a common complication in women with post-operative drains following breast surgery, with the risk being as high as 19%. The authors aimed to conduct the first meta-analysis to determine the efficacy of antiseptic treatment of drains to reduce the incidence of infections by comparing it to drains with no antiseptic coating. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed with an extensive search of the electronic databases retrieving 114 articles. Four articles met the inclusion criteria. The primary outcome measure was the incidence of SSIs and secondary outcome measures included the incidence of bacterial colonisation in the bulb fluid and drain tube. The incidence of SSIs was significantly lower in the antiseptic group compared to the control (CI 95% 0.09 - 0.82, p = 0.02). In addition, there was a lower incidence of colonisation from both the bulb fluid and drain tube with P values of < 0.00001 and P < 0.0001 respectively. The authors report the first meta-analysis within the literature showing the efficacy of antiseptic treatment of surgical drains on colonisation and SSIs following breast surgery. More high-quality trials are recommended to further the current evidence base.
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.