ReviewOTO open
Cyanoacrylate Tissue Adhesives Compared With Sutures on Facial and Neck Wounds: A Meta-analysis.
Review in OTO open. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Objective: To compare the effectiveness between cyanoacrylate tissue adhesives (CTAs) and sutures for skin closure on the face and neck. Data Sources: Embase, Medline, Scopus, Central, Web of Science. Review Methods: Randomized controlled trials comparing CTAs versus sutures for skin closure on the face and neck were included. Primary outcomes were cosmetic outcomes. Secondary outcomes were scar depth, scar width, pain, closure time, cost, and adverse events. Subgroup analyses were performed by wound locations, type of CTAs, type of sutures, age groups, and type of wounds. Physicians and patients evaluated the cosmetic outcomes. Results: Eighteen studies (1020 patients) were included. CTAs offered better cosmetic outcomes by Wound Registry Scale at ≤1 month (physician: mean difference [MD]: -1.50, 95% confidence interval, CI: -2.42 to -0.58). The cosmetic outcomes assessed by Visual Analog Scale were comparable at >1 to ≤3 months (physicians: standard mean difference [SMD], -0.01, 95% CI, -0.25 to 0.23, patients: SMD, -0.02, 95% CI, -0.84 to 0.79). The cosmetic outcomes by the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale favored sutures at >3 to 12 months (physician: MD 4.26, 95% CI, 2.02-6.50). Subgroup analyses revealed no differences. CTAs offered less scar depth, scar width, pain, closure time, and total cost of closure. Adverse events were similar. Conclusion: Based on the wound healing process, the cosmetic outcomes exhibited a favorable inclination toward CTAs at <1 month while demonstrating comparable results between CTAs and sutures at >1 to ≤3 months. Subsequently, sutures exhibited superior cosmetic outcomes compared to CTAs at >3 to 12 months.
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.