If Evidence is in Favor of Incisional Hernia Prevention With Mesh, why is it not Implemented?

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.

1. Incidence of incisional hernia following open repair for an abdominal aortic aneurysm in Japanese patients.Surgery today · 2026
   Article
2. Incisional hernia prediction using machine learning models.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2026
   Observational
3. Mending the Gap: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Mesh Reinforcement for Abdominal Wall Closure in Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm (AAA) Repair.Cureus · 2025
   Review
4. Evaluation of Mesh Closure of Laparotomy and Extraction Incisions in Open and Laparoscopic Colorectal Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024
   Review

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as