Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37559847›Full record

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.

Nadia Taha, Shafiq Rahman, Andrew Kilshaw

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

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.

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.

  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

3 authors.

Nadia TahaPlastic Surgery, Leeds General Infirmary, Leeds, GBR.
Shafiq RahmanPlastic Surgery, Leeds General Infirmary, Leeds, GBR.
Andrew KilshawPlastic Surgery, Leeds General Infirmary, Leeds, GBR.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

bacterial colonisationbreast reconstructionbreast surgerysurgical drainsurgical site infection

Identifiers

PMID37559847
PMCPMC10407596

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.