SynthesisPloS one2025
Comparison of negative pressure wound therapy with conventional wound care in the treatment of sternal wound infection after cardiac surgery: A meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis.
Synthesis in PloS one, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNegative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) has become a popular treatment option for sternal wound infection (SWI). However, it remains uncertain whether the therapeutic benefits of NPWT are superior to conventional wound care. This study aimed to systematically evaluate the therapeutic effects of NPWT on SWI compared to conventional wound care through meta-analysis.
methodsA comprehensive search of PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases was conducted from inception to April 29, 2024 for all potential studies. The pooling of dichotomous outcome data was achieved using relative risk (RR), with results presented within a 95% confidence interval (CI). We utilized the standard mean difference (SMD) and 95% CI for continuous outcomes. Heterogeneity test, publication bias assessment, sensitivity analysis, and trial sequential analysis (TSA) were conducted. Publication bias was detected through the Begg's and Egger's tests. Software R 4.3.1, Stata 12.0, and TSA v0.9.5.10 Beta software were utilized for all analyses.
resultsOut of 1832 articles identified, 10 were included in this study. The overall results revealed that NPWT significantly decreased the sternal wound reinfection (SWRI) rate (RR [95% CI] = 0.179 [0.099 to 0.323], 95% prediction interval [PI]: 0.082 to 0.442), in-hospital mortality (RR [95% CI] = 0.242 [0.149 to 0.394], 95% PI: 0.144 to 0.461), and shortened the length of intensive care unit (ICU) stay (SMD [95% CI] = -0.601 [-0.820 to -0.382], 95% PI: -1.317 to 0.128) compared with conventional wound care. There was no significant difference in length of hospital stay (SMD [95% CI] = -0.402 [-0.815 to 0.012], 95% PI: -1.801 to 0.998) and treatment duration (SMD [95% CI] = -0.398 [-1.646 to 0.849], 95% PI: -16.340 to 15.543) between the NPWT group and control group. Further subgroup analysis demonstrated the benefits of NPWT in shortening hospitalization length in the European population (p < 0.05).
conclusionThe present evidence corroborates that the application of NPWT in the treatment of SWI after cardiac surgery effectively reduces the SWRI incidence and in-hospital mortality while shortening the length of ICU stay.
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.