SynthesisBMC medical research methodology2025
Incidence and outcome characteristics of adverse event in surgery: an assessment based on systematic reviews of barbed suture.
Synthesis in BMC medical research methodology, 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.
- Incisional hernia after continuous barbed versus interrupted non-barbed sutures for midline fascial closure in minimally invasive colorectal cancer surgery: a propensity score-matched analysis.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSystematic reviews (SRs) have affirmed the efficacy of barbed sutures (BS), but raise safety concerns, particularly in adverse events (AEs). We conducted a cross-sectional study to comprehensively collate SRs on BS, summarize the incidence of AEs, and analyze the characteristics of the reported indicators.
methodsA thorough search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang Database, China Biology Medicine disc and VIP Database from inception to April 14, 2025, and the methodological quality was evaluated using AMSTAR-2. AE characteristics of the SR were evaluated utilizing a self-developed item evaluation form.
resultsA total of 52 SRs were included, encompassing 15 surgical procedures and 32 AEs. In terms of methodological quality, 1 SR was rated as high, 5 as moderate, 10 as low, and 36 as critically low. Notably, 92.0% of the SRs did not provide definitions for AEs, 76.0% did not consider severity grading, and none of the SRs assessed the adequacy of sample size. The use of BS significantly reduced the occurrence of needle pricks and biliary fistulas, in addition to increase the rates of suture breakage. Statistically insignificant results included wound dehiscence, blister, exudation, peri − incisional erythema, aseptic redness, hematoma, bleeding, urinary fistulae, stitch abscess, cellulitis, anastomotic stenosis and leak. Inconsistencies were observed in ecchymosis, vaginal cuff dehiscence, postoperative leakage rate after radical prostatectomy, infection, anastomotic bleeding, and overall postoperative complications across different SRs.
conclusionEvidence from SRs has demonstrated advantages as well as certain disadvantages of BSs — such as an increase in the likelihood of suture breakage and wound-related complications. Current evidence remains inadequate and inconsistent, due to lack of definitions for AEs, severity grading, sample size assessments, and details on suture brand and location of use.
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.