SynthesisMedicine2026
Prophylactic negative pressure wound therapy reduces surgical site infection in gastrointestinal, hepatobiliary, and pancreatic laparotomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Medicine, 2026. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSurgical site infections (SSIs) remain a major complication following gastrointestinal, hepatobiliary-pancreatic, and pancreatic surgery. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the efficacy of prophylactic negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) in reducing SSIs following closed abdominal incisions.
methodsA systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, the Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library for studies published from January 2016 to December 2025; all databases were last searched on December 31, 2025, without language restrictions. Both randomized and nonrandomized studies were included. The primary outcome was SSI, while wound dehiscence (WD) was considered a secondary outcome. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool 2.0 (Cochrane, London, UK). Meta-analyses were performed using Stata/MP version 18.0 (StataCorp LLC, College Station) with a random-effects model and Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman correction. A Sankey diagram was generated using Origin 2022 (OriginLab Corporation, Northampton).
resultsA total of 10 studies (6 randomized trials and 4 retrospective studies) involving 3301 patients were included. Among them, 900 patients received NPWT, and 2401 patients received standard dressings. A random-effects model with Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman correction meta-analysis indicated that NPWT significantly reduced the overall incidence of SSI compared with standard dressings (odds ratio [OR] = 0.63; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.41-0.99; P = .04). NPWT also significantly decreased the rates of superficial SSI (OR = 0.51; 95% CI = 0.37-0.69; P < .01) and deep SSI (OR = 0.45; 95% CI = 0.23-0.87; P = .03). However, no significant differences were observed for organ-space SSI or WD.
conclusionProphylactic NPWT reduces the risk of SSI among patients undergoing gastrointestinal, hepatobiliary-pancreatic, and pancreatic abdominal surgeries. Nevertheless, the rates of organ-space SSI and WD are comparable to those associated with standard dressings.
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.