ArticleEFORT open reviews2024
Does earlier bathing increase the risk of surgical site infection? A meta-analysis of 11 randomized controlled trials.
Article in EFORT open reviews, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Mythbusters in Microsurgery: Evaluating Evidence and Debunking Dogma-A Practical Review: Part II.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2026Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: For many decades, patients recovering from wound closure have been instructed not to bathe. Although studies have shown that earlier postoperative bathing does not increase the risk of wound infection, it remains rare in practice for patients to be allowed earlier postoperative bathing. We performed this meta-analysis to determine how earlier bathing affected rates of wound infection, other complications, and patient satisfaction. Methods: This systematic review conforms to PRISMA guidelines. The PubMed, EMBASE, Medline, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched from their inception dates to December 31, 2022. We estimated pooled values for the efficacy of trial of earlier bathing versus delayed bathing using the odds ratio and their associated 95% CI, and we used the I 2 statistic to assess heterogeneity between studies contributing to these estimates. Results: Of the 1813 articles identified by our search, 11 randomized controlled trials including 2964 patients were eligible for inclusion. The incidence of wound infection did not differ significantly between the earlier bathing and delayed bathing groups, nor did rates of other wound complications such as redness and swelling, or wound dehiscence. However, the incidence of hematoma in the delayed bathing group was higher than in the earlier bathing group. Reported patient satisfaction was significantly higher in the earlier bathing group. Conclusion: The medical community, health authorities, and government should create and disseminate clinical practice guidelines to guide patients to evidence-based beneficial treatment.
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.