ArticleBioinformation2025
Efficacy of knotless barbed versus conventional sutures for uterine closure during cesarean section: A prospective comparative study.
Article in Bioinformation, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Barbed Double-Needle Suture for Cesarean Section Uterine Incision Closure: Postoperative Pain and 12-Month Scar Outcomes.Journal of pain research · 2026Article
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
Cesarean section is a typical surgical practice whereby a good uterine closure is essential for maternal outcomes. Conventional suturing involves knot-tying, which may take long and may weaken the integrity of tissues. This study involves a comparison between knotless barbed sutures (KBS) and the use of conventional sutures (CS) to close the uterus in case of cesarean delivery. In an 80-women prospective comparative trial, KBS decreased the uterine incision closure time (8.58 ± 1.18 min vs. 10.18 ± 1.81 min, p=0.002) and total closure time (27.77 ± 4.73 min vs. 30.95 ± 3.08 min, p=0.001) significantly. The extra hemostatic sutures required were significantly reduced in KBS (5% vs. 27.5, p=0.006). The thickness of the scar at 6 weeks (4.23 ± 0.90 mm vs. 3.54 ± 0.60 mm, p<0.001), was larger in the KBS. Knotless barbed sutures have considerable benefits on efficiency of operations, hemostasis and tissue healing of cesarean uterine closure.
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.