ReviewEplasty2024
Closed Incision Negative Pressure Therapy Versus Standard of Care Over Closed Abdominal Incisions in the Reduction of Surgical Site Complications: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Comparative Studies.
Review in Eplasty, 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.
- Linear and Area Coverage With Closed Incision Negative Pressure Therapy Management: International Multidisciplinary Consensus Recommendations.International wound journal · 2025Article
- [Prevention and treatment of surgical site infections in abdominal surgery].Chirurgie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2025Review
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
Background: Surgical site complications (SSCs) pose a significant risk to patients, potentially leading to severe consequences or even loss of life. While previous research has shown that closed incision negative pressure therapy (ciNPT) can reduce wound complications in various surgical fields, its effectiveness in abdominal incisions remains uncertain. To address this gap, a systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to assess the impact of ciNPT on postsurgical outcomes and health care utilization in patients undergoing open abdominal surgeries. Methods: A systematic literature search using PubMed, EMBASE, and QUOSA was performed for publications written in English, comparing ciNPT with standard of care dressings for patients undergoing abdominal surgical procedures between January 2005 and August 2021. Characteristics of study participants, surgical procedures, dressings used, duration of treatment, postsurgical outcomes, and follow-up data were extracted. Meta-analyses were performed using random-effects models. Dichotomous outcomes were summarized using risk ratios and continuous outcomes were assessed using mean differences. Results: The literature search identified 22 studies for inclusion in the analysis. Significant reductions in relative risk (RR) of SSC (RR: 0.568, Conclusions: These findings indicate that use of ciNPT in patients undergoing open abdominal procedures can help reduce SSCs and associated hospital length of stay as well as readmissions.A previous version of this abstract was presented at the 2023 Conference of the European Wound Management Association (EWMA) in Milan, Italy and posted online at the site listed below. EWMA permits abstracts to be republished with the complete manuscript. https://journals.cambridgemedia.com.au/application/files/9116/8920/7316/JWM_Abstracts_LR.pdf.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38846511PMC11155374What 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.