SynthesisMedicine2025
The effect of abdominal compression device on patients after external hernia repair surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Medicine, 2025. 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo evaluate the effectiveness of abdominal compression devices after external hernia repair.
methodsA search was conducted for randomized controlled trials on the application of abdominal compression devices after abdominal hernia repair surgery in databases such as Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMbase, CNKI, VIP, and Wanfang Data Knowledge Service Platform. The retrieval deadline was from the establishment of the database to November 2024. Two researchers independently assessed the risk of bias of the included studies and extracted relevant data using pre designed tables. RevMan 5.4 software was used for statistical analysis.
resultsTen articles were included, with a total of 1081 patients undergoing abdominal hernia repair surgery. The systematic review and meta-analysis results showed no statistically significant difference in the incidence of wound infection (relative risk [RR] = 0.41, P > .05), wound bleeding (RR = 0.56, P > .05), perineal hematoma (RR = 0.93, P > .05), or wound infection (RR = 0.40, P > .05). In terms of pain, subgroup analysis was performed to determine the incidence of wound infection (RR = 0.41), wound bleeding (RR = 0.56, P > .05), perineal hematoma (RR = 0.93, P > .05), and recurrence (RR = 0.70, P > .05) between the compression group and non-compression group. In terms of pain, subgroup analysis showed that the postoperative use of abdominal bands to compress the surgical area could reduce pain (mean difference [MD] = -1.17, P < .01), while the use of sandbags was not recommended, while the use of sandbags to compress the surgical area increased pain (MD = 1.09, P < .01).
conclusionAfter abdominal hernia repair surgery, the use of abdominal compression devices had no significant effect on reducing the incidence of serum swelling, wound infection, and recurrence compared to the method of removing compression. After abdominal hernia repair surgery, the use of abdominal compression devices had no significant effect on reducing the incidence of serum swelling, wound infection, and recurrence compared to the method of removing compression. Abdominal band compression has a significant effect on reducing pain, whereas sandbag compression can increase pain.
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.