ReviewAnnals of medicine and surgery (2012)2024
Comparison between novel zipper device and conventional methods for skin closure: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in Annals of medicine and surgery (2012), 2024. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The zipper device is a wound closure device that can be directly applied over the intact skin on either side of the wound edges and does not need anchoring into the skin or subcutaneous plane. The noninvasive nature of the zipper device makes it less time-consuming and less painful, but its effectiveness and related complications need to be studied. Methods: Prospective registration of the protocol followed in this study was done. Electronic databases were searched for relevant articles, and their screening was completed, followed by data extraction and analysis. The odds ratio, mean difference, or standardised mean difference were used as an effect measure per the nature of the variables. Surgical site infection, wound dehiscence, skin closure time, scar score, and patient satisfaction were compared in this study. Results: A total of 10 studies were identified, out of which eight compared zippers with sutures and two compared zippers with stapler devices. Compared to the suture, the zipper device took 4.9 min less to close the incision, and the scar scale outcome reported after one month was inferior, while other results were not significant. Staples showed a lower patient satisfaction level and no difference in complications. Conclusion: The zipper device is a less technically demanding and less time-consuming method of skin closure, with no significant difference in the complication rate compared to conventional methods. The zipper device is an effective measure to use in settings with less expertise or at health institutions after assessing the cost at the local level.
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.