Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33952438›Full record

Trial reportBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2021

Closed incision negative pressure wound therapy versus standard dressings in obese women undergoing caesarean section: multicentre parallel group randomised controlled trial.

Brigid M Gillespie, Joan Webster, David Ellwood, Lukman Thalib, Jennifer A Whitty, Kassam Mahomed, Vicki Clifton, Sailesh Kumar, Adam Wagner, Evelyn Kang and 1 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readEquivalence TrialMulticenter StudyPragmatic Clinical Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
5.6field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 32 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Single-use negative pressure wound therapy to prevent surgical site complications in high-risk patients undergoing caesarean sections: a real-world study.International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care · 2023
    Observational
  15. Article
  16. Meta-analysis of prophylactic negative pressure wound therapy for surgical site infections (SSI) in caesarean section surgery.Wideochirurgia i inne techniki maloinwazyjne = Videosurgery and other miniinvasive techniques · 2023
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Overweight, obesity and excessive weight gain in pregnancy as risk factors for adverse pregnancy outcomes: A narrative review.Journal of human nutrition and dietetics : the official journal of the British Dietetic Association · 2022
    Review
  20. Review
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

11 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Brigid M GillespieNational Health and Medical Research Council Centre of Research Excellence in Wiser Wound Care, Menzies Health Institute, Griffith University, Gold Coast, Qld, Australia b.gillespie@griffith.edu.au.ORCID 0000-0003-3186-5691
Joan WebsterCentre for Clinical Nursing, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Herston, Qld, Australia.
David EllwoodGold Coast University Hospital, Gold Coast Health, Southport, Qld, Australia.
Lukman ThalibSchool of Nursing and Midwifery, Griffith University, Gold Coast, Qld, Australia.
Jennifer A WhittyNorwich Medical School, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK.
Kassam MahomedIpswich Hospital, West Moreton Health, Ipswich, Qld, Australia.
Vicki CliftonMater Research Institute, University of Queensland, South Brisbane, Qld, Australia.
Sailesh KumarMater Research Institute, University of Queensland, South Brisbane, Qld, Australia.
Adam WagnerNorwich Medical School, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK.
Evelyn KangNational Health and Medical Research Council Centre of Research Excellence in Wiser Wound Care, Menzies Health Institute, Griffith University, Gold Coast, Qld, Australia.
Wendy ChaboyerNational Health and Medical Research Council Centre of Research Excellence in Wiser Wound Care, Menzies Health Institute, Griffith University, Gold Coast, Qld, Australia.
Griffith University · AUThe University of Queensland · AUUniversity of East Anglia · GBIpswich Hospital · AURoyal Brisbane and Women's Hospital · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo determine the effectiveness of closed incision negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) compared with standard dressings in preventing surgical site infection (SSI) in obese women undergoing caesarean section.

designMulticentre, pragmatic, randomised, controlled, parallel group, superiority trial.

settingFour Australian tertiary hospitals between October 2015 and November 2019.

participantsEligible women had a pre-pregnancy body mass index of 30 or greater and gave birth by elective or semi-urgent caesarean section.

intervention2035 consenting women were randomised before the caesarean procedure to closed incision NPWT (n=1017) or standard dressing (n=1018). Allocation was concealed until skin closure.

main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was cumulative incidence of SSI. Secondary outcomes included depth of SSI (superficial, deep, or organ/body space), rates of wound complications (dehiscence, haematoma, seroma, bleeding, bruising), length of stay in hospital, and rates of dressing related adverse events. Women and clinicians were not masked, but the outcome assessors and statistician were blinded to treatment allocation. The pre-specified primary intention to treat analysis was based on a conservative assumption of no SSI for a minority of women (n=28) with missing outcome data. Post hoc sensitivity analyses included best case analysis and complete case analysis.

resultsIn the primary intention to treat analysis, SSI occurred in 75 (7.4%) women treated with closed incision NPWT and in 99 (9.7%) women with a standard dressing (risk ratio 0.76, 95% confidence interval 0.57 to 1.01; P=0.06). Post hoc sensitivity analyses to explore the effect of missing data found the same direction of effect (closed incision NPWT reducing SSI), with statistical significance. Blistering occurred in 40/996 (4.0%) women who received closed incision NPWT and in 23/983 (2.3%) who received the standard dressing (risk ratio 1.72, 1.04 to 2.85; P=0.03).

conclusionProphylactic closed incision NPWT for obese women after caesarean section resulted in a 24% reduction in the risk of SSI (3% reduction in absolute risk) compared with standard dressings. This difference was close to statistical significance, but it likely underestimates the effectiveness of closed incision NPWT in this population. The results of the conservative primary analysis, multivariable adjusted model, and post hoc sensitivity analysis need to be considered alongside the growing body of evidence of the benefit of closed incision NPWT and given the number of obese women undergoing caesarean section globally. The decision to use closed incision NPWT must also be weighed against the increases in skin blistering and economic considerations and should be based on shared decision making with patients.

trial registrationANZCTR identifier 12615000286549.

Indexed as

Cesarean SectionObesityPregnancy ComplicationsAdolescentAdultDouble-Blind MethodFemaleHumansIncidenceIntention to Treat AnalysisMiddle AgedNegative-Pressure Wound TherapyPregnancyProspective StudiesSurgical Wound InfectionTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID33952438
PMCPMC8097312
OpenAlexW3157528621

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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 Socratic graph.