SynthesisInternational wound journal2022
Negative pressure wound therapy versus conventional wound care in cancer surgical wounds: A meta-analysis of observational studies and randomised controlled trials.
Synthesis in International wound journal, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Delayed primary skin closure reduce surgical site infection following surgery for gastrointestinal perforation: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2024Pooled it
- The efficacy of topical oxygen therapy for wound healing: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and observational studies.International wound journal · 2024Pooled it
- Negative pressure wound therapy versus conventional wound care in cancer surgical wounds: A meta-analysis of observational studies and randomised controlled trials.International wound journal · 2022Pooled it
- Closed-Incision Negative Pressure Therapy: Scoping Review and Multidisciplinary Consensus Recommendations of the Spanish Observatory of Infection in Surgery.International wound journal · 2025Article
- Negative Pressure Wound Therapy to Reduce Surgical Site Infections after CRS/HIPEC.Annals of surgical oncology · 2024Article
- Local Microbubble Removal in Polydimethylsiloxane Microchannel by Balancing Negative and Atmospheric Pressures.Micromachines · 2023Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The application of negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) in cancer surgical wounds is still controversial, despite its promising usage, because of the risks of increased tumorigenesis and metastasis. This study aimed to review the risks and benefits of NPWT in surgical wounds with the underlying malignant disease compared with conventional wound care (CWC). The first outcome was wound complications, divided into surgical site infection (SSI), seroma, hematoma, and wound dehiscence. The secondary outcome was hospital readmission. We performed a separate meta-analysis of observational studies and randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with CI 95%. Thirteen observational studies with 1923 patients and seven RCTs with 1091 patients were included. NPWT group showed significant decrease in the risk of SSI (RR = 0.45) and seroma (RR = 0.61) in observational studies with P value <0.05, as well as RCTs but were not significant (RR = 0.88 and RR = 0.68). Wound dehiscence (RR = 0.74 and RR = 1.15) and hospital readmission (RR = 0.90 and RR = 0.62) showed lower risks in NPWT group but were not significant. Hematoma (RR = 1.08 and RR = 0.87) showed no significant difference. NPWT is not contraindicated in cancer surgical wounds and can be considered a beneficial palliative treatment to promote wound healing.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.