ReviewCureus2025
Infection, Healing, and Cost in Open Fractures: A Review of Negative Pressure Wound Therapy.
Review in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Severe trauma care: advances and future directions in diagnostic and therapeutic techniques and information technology support.Medical review (2021) · 2026Article
- Review
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
Complex open fractures present substantial challenges, including infectious complications, healing delays, and functional impairment. Sub-atmospheric pressure therapy has gained adoption as a supplementary treatment modality, despite ongoing debate regarding its clinical efficacy. A focused literature search was conducted in PubMed, Google Scholar, and the Cochrane Library (1997-2025). Randomised controlled trials, cohort studies, and systematic reviews on negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) in open fractures were prioritised. Outcomes of interest included infection rate, healing time, flap/graft requirement, reoperation rate, and cost-effectiveness. Early randomised and cohort studies demonstrated reduced deep infection rates with NPWT compared with standard dressings. Pooled analyses demonstrated reduced infection and flap failure rates, although union times and reoperation rates showed no consistent benefit. The WOLLF multicentre trial found no improvement in long-term functional outcomes, and an accompanying economic analysis questioned cost-effectiveness. NPWT appears most useful in severe open fractures with significant soft-tissue loss, where it may reduce infection and assist in temporary wound management. Its role in routine use remains controversial, and further high-quality studies are needed to clarify patient selection and long-term cost-effectiveness.
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.