Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37789307›Full record

SynthesisBMC surgery2023

Plus Sutures for preventing surgical site infection: a systematic review of clinical outcomes with economic and environmental models.

M Edwards, S Graziadio, J Shore, N D Schmitz, T Galvain, W A Danker, M Kocaman, D J Pournaras, D M Bowley, K J Hardy

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC surgery, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. MonocrylMedical sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Article
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
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

10 authors.

M EdwardsYork Health Economics Consortium, University of York, Enterprise House, Innovation Way, York, YO10 5NQ, UK. mary.edwards@york.ac.uk.
S GraziadioYork Health Economics Consortium, University of York, Enterprise House, Innovation Way, York, YO10 5NQ, UK.
J ShoreYork Health Economics Consortium, University of York, Enterprise House, Innovation Way, York, YO10 5NQ, UK.
N D SchmitzJohnson & Johnson MEDICAL GmbH, Robert-Koch-Strasse 1, 22851, Norderstedt, Germany.
T GalvainGlobal Health Economics, Johnson & Johnson Medical Devices, New Brunswick, NJ, USA.
W A DankerEthicon Inc., 1000 US-202, Raritan, NJ, 08869, USA.
M KocamanJohnson & Johnson Medical Limited, Berkshire, UK.
D J PournarasDepartment of Bariatric and Metabolic Surgery, Southmead Hospital, North Bristol NHS Trust, Bristol, UK.
D M BowleyUniversity Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Mindelsohn Way, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2WB, UK.
K J HardyDerbyshire Pathology, University Hospitals Derby and Burton NHS Trust, Royal Derby Hospital, Derby, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSurgical site infections (SSIs) represent ~ 20% of all hospital-acquired infections in surgical patients and are associated with prolonged hospital stay, admission to intensive care, and mortality. We conducted a systematic review with economic and environmental models to assess whether triclosan-coated sutures (Plus Sutures) provide benefits over non-coated sutures in the reduction of SSI risk.

methodsSearches were conducted in fifteen databases. A total of 1,991 records were retrieved. Following deduplication and screening by two independent reviewers, 31 randomized controlled trials in adults and children were included in the review. Similarity of the studies was assessed by narrative review and confirmed by quantitative assessment. A fixed effects meta-analysis of SSI incidence model including all groups of patients estimated a risk ratio of 0.71 (95% confidence interval: 0.64 to 0.79) indicating those in the Plus Sutures group had a 29% reduction in the risk of developing an SSI compared with those in the control group (p < 0.001). Safety outcomes were analysed qualitatively.

resultsThe economic model estimated the use of Plus Sutures to result in average cost savings of £13.63 per patient. Plus Sutures remained cost-saving in all subgroup analyses with cost-savings ranging between £11 (clean wounds) and £140 (non-clean wounds). The environmental impact of SSI is substantial, and the model suggests that the introduction of Plus Sutures could result in potential environmental benefits.

conclusionsThe evidence suggests that Plus Sutures are associated with a reduced incidence of SSI across all surgery types alongside cost savings when compared with standard sutures.

Indexed as

Anti-Infective Agents, LocalTriclosanAdultChildHumansLength of StayRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSurgical Wound InfectionSuturesAnti-Infective Agents, LocalTriclosanAntibiotic coatingInfectionMeta-analysisSSISurgerySuturesSystematic reviewTriclosan

Identifiers

PMID37789307
PMCPMC10548560

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.