ArticleContemporary clinical trials communications2024
PROphylactic closed incision Negative-PRESSure treatment in open incisional hernia repair: Protocol for a multicenter randomized trial (PROPRESS study).
Article in Contemporary clinical trials communications, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- A scoping review of outcome reporting in randomized controlled trials of incisional and non-incisional ventral hernia repair.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2026Article
- A Comparative Study of the Improved Negative-Pressure Drainage Tube and the Penrose Silicone Drainage Tube: Which Is More Beneficial for Wounds from Deep Infections Healing? A Rabbit Model Study.Indian journal of orthopaedics · 2026Article
- A Systematic Review of Closed-Incision Negative-Pressure Wound Therapy for Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Surgery: Updated Evidence, Context, and Clinical Implications.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
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 at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Negative Pressure Therapy in closed incisions (ciNPT) after surgery has shown positive effects including reduction of Surgical Site Infection (SSI) incidence. In patients undergoing elective open incisional hernia repair, however, ciNPT is not standard care, perhaps due to high-quality evidence still not provided. This study hypothesizes that this patient group would benefit from ciNPT by reducing wound complications and improving postoperative quality of life. Method: This is a multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT) including a total of 110 patients allocated in a 1:1 ratio with one intervention arm and one active control arm receiving ciNPT (i.e., Prevena™) and standard wound dressing, respectively. The primary outcome is the incidence of SSI at 30 days postoperatively and secondary outcomes are 1) pooled incidence of Surgical Site Occurrence (SSO), 2) patient-reported pain and satisfaction with the scar, and 3) hernia-related quality of life. Conclusion: Patients undergoing elective open incisional hernia repair are fragile with a high risk of wound complication development. This multicenter RCT seeks to deliver the high-quality evidence needed to establish the role ciNPT must play for exactly this group with the aim of reducing SSI incidence and health economic costs, and finally improving quality of life. There are no theoretical or clinical experience of unwanted consequences of this treatment.
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.