Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41866474›Full record

SynthesisBMC pregnancy and childbirth2026

Prevention and management of nipple wound: a systematic review.

Neslihan Atli, Hava Özkan, Emine Kaplan Seri̇n

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Neslihan AtliHealth Sciences Institute, Midwifery Department, Atatürk University, Erzurum, Turkey. neslihanatli96@gmail.com.
Hava ÖzkanFaculty of Health Sciences, Department of Midwifery, Atatürk University, Erzurum, Turkey.
Emine Kaplan Seri̇nNursing Faculty, Mersin University, Mersin, Turkey.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundNipple wounds are common complications during breastfeeding and may lead to pain, early cessation of breastfeeding, and maternal distress. Various pharmacological and non-pharmacological approaches have been proposed for the prevention and treatment of nipple wounds; however, evidence regarding their effectiveness remains inconsistent. This systematic review aimed to comprehensively evaluate current evidence on methods used for both the prevention and management of nipple wounds.

methodsThis systematic review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA 2020 guidelines. Literature searches were performed between March and April 2024 using the databases PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Scopus. To ensure that the review reflects the most up-to-date evidence, the search was repeated in January 2026 using the same databases and search strategy. No additional studies meeting the inclusion criteria were identified. Only studies published in English were included, and grey literature was not considered. MeSH terms and keywords including “wound,” “nipple wound,” “nipple trauma,” “nipple fissure,” “prevention of nipple wound,” and “treatment of nipple wound” were used in various combinations. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published within the last nine years were included. Study selection followed the PICOS framework. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) critical appraisal checklists appropriate to each study design.

resultsFifteen randomized controlled trials involving a total of 1,796 participants were included. The findings indicated that non-pharmacological interventions—such as proper breastfeeding techniques, nipple care education, breast milk application, and supportive devices—were effective in both preventing the development of nipple wounds and reducing the severity, pain, and healing duration of existing wounds. Compared with pharmacological treatments, non-pharmacological approaches demonstrated comparable or superior outcomes in several studies. CONCLUSıON: The evidence suggests that non-pharmacological methods play a beneficial role in the prevention and treatment of nipple wounds. However, the effectiveness of these interventions should be interpreted with caution due to heterogeneity in intervention types, outcome measures, and variability in the methodological quality of the included studies. These interventions appear to be safe, accessible, and effective, particularly when integrated with breastfeeding education and support. Further high-quality randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with standardized outcome measures are needed to strengthen the evidence base and inform clinical practice.

Indexed as

Breast FeedingNipplesFemaleHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicWound HealingNipple woundPrevention of nipple woundSystematic reviewTreatment of nipple woundWound

Identifiers

PMID41866474
PMCPMC13130628

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.