Trial reportAnnals of African medicine2025
Indigenous Negative Pressure Wound Therapy: A Low-cost Equivalent Alternative to Conventional Vacuum-assisted Closure Therapy - A Prospective Randomized Open-blind Endpoint Study.
Trial report in Annals of African medicine, 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.
- Comparison of Indigenous Low Cost Vacuum-Assisted Closure Therapy and Standard Wound Therapy in Open Fractures: A Randomized Controlled Trial.Journal of orthopaedic case reports · 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundVacuum assisted closure therapy (VAC) is a noninvasive, cost-effective alternative to surgical wound management. Indigenous negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) systems offer comparable clinical outcomes without financial constraints. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis prospective comparative study was conducted over 1 year at the Orthopedics department of RIMS, Ranchi. Eligibility criteria included patients with Gustilo-Anderson class 2, 3A, or 3B wounds, with exclusion criteria such as vascular injury or wound <10mm. Sample size was calculated to be 86 participants (43 per group). Data collection involved semi-quantitative wound assessments and wound surface area measurements, and statistical analysis was performed using SPSS software. Student t -test and Chi-square test were used to test statistical significance.
resultsThe study revealed that the conventional negative pressure wound therapy led to faster wound healing, with a mean time of 31.1 days compared to 34.7 days in the indigenous therapy group. Assessment of wound bed score parameters showed similar results between the groups initially, with slight variations noted in certain aspects like severity of exposed bone/tendon during the second VAC applications.
conclusionThe study found that indigenous VAC therapy reduced wound healing time significantly. Both therapies had similar wound management outcomes, with minor differences in wound bed score parameters. However, conventional therapy displayed better wound healing progress. Complications were slightly lower but comparable in the indigenous group, suggesting indigenous VAC therapy as a cost-effective and safe alternative to conventional VAC therapy.
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.