SynthesisBMC surgery2025
Role of wound protectors in preventing surgical site infection in patients undergoing abdominal surgery: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis in BMC surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Oral Antibiotic Preparation Is Associated with Lower Surgical Site Infection After Ileostomy Closure: A Retrospective Cohort Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
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
Abstract
objectiveTo investigate the role of wound protectors (WPs) in surgical site infection (SSI) prevention in patients undergoing abdominal surgery.
backgroundDespite practitioners having pursued the ultimate aim of "getting to zero" for centuries, SSI is still a global healthcare burden. WPs are thought to be able to prevent the incision from bacterial contamination, however, contradictory results have been reported.
methodA meta-analysis was performed to compare the SSI rate in patients with and without WPs after abdominal surgery. It includes subgroup analysis of the SSI rate in different surgical sites and different degrees of wound contamination. A systematic literature search was conducted in the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library databases, and Web of Science from their respective inceptions until July 6, 2024. All randomized controlled trials with consistent definitions of SSI were included. The bias of each included RCT was assessed by using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2. To evaluate the risks of random errors resulting from repeated significant testing, a trial sequential analysis was performed. The quality of evidence was assessed by using GRADEpro Guideline Development Tool.
resultsA total of 4779 participants were involved in the 19 RCTs. The results showed that the application of WPs during abdominal surgery could significantly reduce the SSI rate (RR = 0.63, 95% CI: 0.50-0.80, P = 0.0001, very low certainty evidence). Subgroup analysis showed that the implementation of WPs significantly reduced the SSI rate after colorectal and gastrointestinal surgery (RR = 0.58, 95% CI: 0.38-0.91, P = 0.02, very low certainty evidence; RR = 0.49, 95% CI: 0.36-0.67, P < 0.00001, moderate certainty evidence, respectively), while had no clear protect role in other types of abdominal surgery. The WPs significantly reduced the SSI rate in patients with a clean-contaminated wound (RR = 0.64, 95% CI: 0.46-0.89, P = 0.008, very low certainty evidence) and contaminated or dirty wound (RR = 0.61, 95% CI: 0.41-0.92, P = 0.02, moderate certainty evidence), respectively.
conclusionsThe results indicated that the WPs should not be used indiscriminately in all abdominal but gastrointestinal surgery. For patients with contaminated or dirty incisions, WPs should be considered. More studies are needed to determine the effect of WPs in laparoscopic surgery. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
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.