SynthesisInternational wound journal2024
Surgical site infection outcomes of two different closed incision negative pressure therapy systems in cardiac surgery: Systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in International wound journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Surgical site infection outcomes of two different closed incision negative pressure therapy systems in cardiac surgery: Systematic review and meta-analysis.International wound journal · 2024Pooled it
- Linear and Area Coverage With Closed Incision Negative Pressure Therapy Management: International Multidisciplinary Consensus Recommendations.International wound journal · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Closed incision negative pressure therapy (ciNPT) system use compared with standard of care dressings (SOC) on surgical site infection (SSI) in cardiac surgery was assessed. A systematic literature review was conducted. Risk ratios (RR) and random effects models were used to assess ciNPT with foam dressing (ciNPT-F) or multilayer absorbent dressing (ciNPT-MLA) versus SOC. Health economic models were developed to assess potential per patient cost savings. Eight studies were included in the ciNPT-F analysis and four studies were included in the ciNPT-MLA analysis. For ciNPT-F, a significant reduction in SSI incidence was observed (RR: 0.507, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.362, 0.709; p < 0.001). High-risk study analysis reported significant SSI reduction with ciNPT-F use (RR: 0.390, 95% CI: 0.205, 0.741; p = 0.004). For ciNPT-MLA, no significant difference in SSI rates were reported (RR: 0.672, 95% CI: 0.276, 1.635; p = 0.381). Health economic modelling estimated a per patient cost savings of $554 for all patients and $3242 for the high-risk population with ciNPT-F use. Health economic modelling suggests ciNPT-F may provide a cost-effective solution for sternotomy incision management. However, limited high-quality literature exists. More high-quality evidence is needed to fully assess the impact of ciNPT use following cardiac surgery.
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.