SynthesisInternational wound journal2024
Meta-analysis comparing different ultrasound detection methods to accurately assess wound healing and scar formation after caesarean section.
Synthesis in International wound journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It has been retracted, and should not be counted. 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, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Meta-analysis comparing different ultrasound detection methods to accurately assess wound healing and scar formation after caesarean section.International wound journal · 2024Pooled it
- RETRACTION: Meta-Analysis Comparing Different Ultrasound Detection Methods to Accurately Assess Wound Healing and Scar Formation after Caesarean Section.International wound journal · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
- Retraction · 2024-12-15Compromised Peer Review · Investigation by Journal/Publisher ·
- Retracted
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
The accurate assessment of wound healing post-caesarean section, especially in twin pregnancies, remains a pivotal concern in obstetrics, given its implications for maternal health and recovery. Traditional methods, including conventional abdominal ultrasonography (CU), have been challenged by the advent of transvaginal ultrasonography (TU), offering potentially enhanced sensitivity and specificity. This meta-analysis directly compares the efficacy of TU and CU in evaluating wound healing and scar formation, crucial for optimizing postoperative care. Results indicate that TU is associated with significantly better outcomes in wound healing, demonstrated by lower REEDA scores (SMD = -20.56, 95% CI: [-27.34.20, -13.77], p < 0.01), and in scar formation reduction, evidenced by lower Manchester Scar Scale scores (SMD = -25.18, 95% CI: [-29.98, -20.39], p < 0.01). These findings underscore the potential of integrating TU into routine post-caesarean evaluation protocols to enhance care quality and patient recovery.
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.