SynthesisAnnals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England2025
A network meta-analysis of the timing of wound dressing removal.
Synthesis in Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- [Wound care following dermatologic surgical procedures].Dermatologie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2026Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionWounds are invariably dressed postoperatively but the evidence for the timing of dressing changes is limited. This meta-analysis evaluated whether the relative risk of wound infection varies depending on when dressings are changed.
methodsA frequentist random-effects network meta-analysis was conducted on the results of a systematic review of the MEDLINE
resultsA total of 4 studies were included with 878 patients. A significant increase in the relative risk of wound infection was found when dressings were left in situ for more than 4.5 days when compared with 48 hours (3.18, 95% confidence interval: 1.22-8.33). There were no significant differences in the relative risk of infection between the other groups. Model heterogeneity and inconsistency were insignificant (Cochran's Q: 0.44,
conclusionsLate dressing changes significantly increase the risks of wound infection and changes at 48 hours minimise these risks. There was no advantage demonstrated for earlier dressing changes. Ensuring that dressings are changed appropriately can minimise patient harm and health service costs.
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.