ArticleArchives of plastic surgery2024
Absorbable versus Nonabsorbable Sutures for Facial Skin Closure: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Clinical and Aesthetic Outcomes.
Article in Archives of plastic surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07639372 (A Self-Controlled Clinical Study of Fast-Absorbable Versus Slow-Absorbable Sutures Applied in Ultra Tension-Reducing Suture Technique), which is not on this map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
A Self-Controlled Clinical Study of Fast-Absorbable Versus Slow-Absorbable Sutures Applied in Ultra Tension-Reducing Suture Technique
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Beyond Sutures: Moist Exposed Burn Ointment (MEBO) and Scar Massage for Anatomical Restoration of Penetrating Upper Lip Laceration at the Vermilion-Cutaneous Junction in Primary Care-A Case Report.Clinical medicine insights. Case reports · 2025Article
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
When repairing facial wounds, it is crucial to possess a thorough understanding of suitable suture materials and their evidence base. The absence of high-quality and comprehensive systematic reviews poses challenges in making informed decisions. In this study, we conducted a review of the existing literature and assessed the quality of the current evidence pertaining to the clinical, aesthetic, and patient-reported outcomes associated with absorbable and nonabsorbable sutures for facial skin closure. The study was registered on Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews. We conducted searches on Embase, Ovid, and PubMed/MEDLINE databases. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were eligible for inclusion in this study. Additionally, the risk of bias in the randomized studies was assessed using Cochrane's Risk of Bias Tool. The study included a total of nine RCTs involving 804 participants with facial injuries. Among these injuries, absorbable sutures were utilized in 50.2% (403 injuries), while nonabsorbable sutures were employed in 49.8% (401 injuries). The analysis of cosmesis scales revealed no statistically significant difference between absorbable and nonabsorbable sutures regarding infections (
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.