ReviewCureus2025
Tap Water vs. Sterile Saline for Irrigation of Traumatic Soft-Tissue Wounds in the ED.
Review in Cureus, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Traumatic wounds are a common presentation in EDs and are routinely irrigated to reduce infection risk. Sterile saline (SS) is traditionally used, though tap water (TW) may offer advantages in cost, availability, and environmental sustainability. A narrative review was conducted using PubMed and Google Scholar (August 2025) to identify systematic reviews, randomized controlled trials, observational studies, and guidelines comparing TW and SS for traumatic wound irrigation in emergency settings. Outcomes assessed included infection rates, cost, environmental impact, workflow efficiency, and accessibility. Evidence from randomized trials and a recent systematic review demonstrates no significant difference in infection rates between TW and SS, with some studies favoring TW. These findings, combined with the considerable reductions in cost and environmental impact, along with the greater practicality of TW, suggest it is a safe and effective alternative when potable water is available. Remaining concerns relate mainly to water quality and clinician acceptance, particularly in regions where water quality is variable. Additional multicenter high-quality studies are needed to clarify any absolute infection differences and to explore TW implementation across diverse clinical and resource contexts.
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.