SynthesisRenal failure2024
Effect of different exit-site care dressings on preventing peritoneal dialysis related infection from nontropical area: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Renal failure, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectThis study aims to conduct a systematic review and network meta-analysis to comprehensively evaluate the efficacy of various dressings in preventing exit-site infection (ESI) and peritonitis.
methodsWe searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, CINAHL Plus with Full Text (EBSCO), Sino Med, Wan Fang Data, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) from 1 January 1999 to 10 July 2023. The language restrictions were Chinese and English. Randomized controlled trials, non-randomized controlled trials, and self-controlled trials were included in this study. We used ROB 2 tool to evaluate the quality of the included literature. Two authors independently extracted the data according to the Cochrane Handbook. A Frequentist network meta-analysis was performed using Stata17.0 according to PRISAMA with a random effects model.
resultsFrom 2092 potentially eligible studies, thirteen studies were selected for analysis, including nine randomized controlled studies, three quasi-experimental studies and one self-controlled trial. A total of 1229 patients were included to compare five types of exit site care dressings, named disinfection dressings, antibacterial dressings, non-antibacterial occlusive dressings, sterile gauze, and no-particular dressings. The outcome of prevention ESI is antibacterial dressings (SUCRA = 97.6) >non-antibacterial occlusive dressings (SUCRA = 68.3) >disinfection dressings (SUCRA = 50.6) >no-particular dressings (SUCRA = 23.9) >sterile gauze (SUCRA = 9.5). The antibacterial dressings were more effective than sterile gauze (OR = 0.13, 95%CI 0.04∼0.44), and no-particular dressing (OR = 0.18, 95%CI 0.07∼0.50) in preventing ESI; the non-antibacterial occlusive dressings were effective than sterile gauze (OR:0.30, 95%CI 0.16∼0.57). There is no statistical significance between no-particular dressings and other types of dressings in preventing the mature ESI. There is no statistical significance in the effectiveness of five types of dressings in preventing peritonitis.
conclusionsThe no-particular dressings maybe more cost-effective for preventing mature ESI. None of the dressings was more effective than another in preventing peritonitis. Then, none of the different types of dressing is strongly recommended for preventing ESI or peritonitis.
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.