Observational studyWorld journal of surgery2025
Dual Surveillance of Surgical Site Infections Using CDC and ASEPSIS Criteria: Clinical and Economic Outcomes in Colorectal and Small Bowel Surgery.
Observational study in World journal of surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Dehiscence, infection, seroma, haematoma (DISH): development and validation of a new classification of surgical site outcomes.The British journal of surgery · 2026Article
- Construction and clinical validation of a machine learning-based risk prediction model for poor wound healing after anorectal surgery.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Article
- Dual Surveillance of Surgical Site Infections Using CDC and ASEPSIS Criteria: Clinical and Economic Outcomes in Colorectal and Small Bowel Surgery.World journal of surgery · 2025Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSurgical site infection (SSI) adversely affects postoperative outcomes and resource utilization. CDC-based definitions may under-identify minor yet clinically significant wound healing disturbances. This study evaluated the incidence and burden of SSIs using both the CDC criteria and the ASEPSIS scoring system.
methodsA prospective observational study was conducted at a tertiary referral center between August 2018 and January 2019. Patients undergoing colorectal or small bowel surgery were monitored for SSIs using CDC criteria and ASEPSIS scores. Surgical wounds were assessed on postoperative days 2, 4, and 6 with follow-up until 30 days. SSI was defined as either meeting the CDC criteria or having an ASEPSIS score > 21. ASEPSIS scores of 10-19 were classified as wound disturbance.
resultsAmong 460 patients, 54 (11.7%) developed SSIs: 53 based on CDC criteria and 15 based on ASEPSIS score. When ASEPSIS scores of 10-19 were included, the wound complication rate increased to 17.6%. Patients with SSIs had longer hospital stays (15.6 ± 8.0 vs. 11.0 ± 5.5 days, p < 0.001) and incurred 36% higher total hospital costs. Among patients with ASEPSIS scores of 10-19 but no CDC-defined SSI (n = 28), hospital stay and inpatient costs were comparable to those of SSI-free patients. However, outpatient visits (6.5 ± 9.3 vs. 1.1 ± 1.3, p = 0.005) and costs (USD 99 ± 91 vs. USD 48 ± 48, p = 0.007) were significantly higher.
conclusionsThe ASEPSIS scoring system identified clinically relevant wound disturbances that were not detected by CDC criteria. Dual surveillance revealed additional postoperative morbidity and outpatient burden. Integrating ASEPSIS into routine monitoring may improve wound complication detection and enable earlier interventions.
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.