ArticleInternational wound journal2024
A comprehensive study on the risk factors and pathogen analysis of postoperative wound infections following caesarean section procedures.
Article in International wound journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It has been retracted, and should not be counted. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparing Antibiotic Regimens for Preventing Infections After Planned Cesarean Delivery.O&G open · 2025Article
- A Predictive Nomogram for Post-Cesarean Infections: Risk Factors and Clinical Implications.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2025Article
- RETRACTION: A Comprehensive Study on the Risk Factors and Pathogen Analysis of Postoperative Wound Infections Following Caesarean Section Procedures.International wound journal · 2025Article
- A comprehensive study on the risk factors and pathogen analysis of postoperative wound infections following caesarean section procedures.International wound journal · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
- Retracted
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Postoperative wound infections (PWIs), a subtype of surgical site infections, are a significant concern for patients undergoing caesarean sections (C-sections). Understanding risk factors and pathogen profiles can greatly assist in early diagnosis and effective treatment. This study aimed to identify risk factors and analyse the pathogenic landscape contributing to PWIs in C-sections. A nested case-control study was carried out, utilising stringent criteria for case selection and control matching. Diagnostic criteria for surgical site infections included both clinical and microbiological parameters. Risk variables examined included patient age, Body Mass Index, duration of surgery and several other clinical indicators. Microbiological analysis was performed using the BD Phoenix-100 Automated Bacterial Identification System. Statistical analyses were conducted using SPSS version 26.0, and risk factors were evaluated through both univariate and multivariate analyses. A total of 50 patients, aged between 20 and 45 years (mean age 26.3 ± 5.6), developed PWIs following C-sections. The study revealed a temporal distribution and various clinical indicators of PWIs, including elevated white blood cell count and C-reactive protein levels. Gram-negative bacteria were found to be more prevalent at 57.4%. Notable pathogens included Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Acinetobacter baumannii. Antimicrobial resistance patterns were also identified, highlighting the need for a targeted antibiotic approach. Increased infection risks were linked to lack of prophylactic antibiotics, absence of preoperative povidone-iodine antisepsis, operations over an hour, anaemia, amniotic fluid contamination, diabetes, GTI, premature rupture of membranes and white blood cells counts above 10 × 10
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.