ArticleWorld journal of otorhinolaryngology - head and neck surgery2025
Comparing vacuum-assisted closure against conventional approach in severe deep neck infection: A retrospective case-control study.
Article in World journal of otorhinolaryngology - head and neck surgery, 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.
- Comparing vacuum-assisted closure against conventional approach in severe deep neck infection: A retrospective case-control study.World journal of otorhinolaryngology - head and neck surgery · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: To compare the effectiveness of vacuum-assisted closure (VAC) against traditional drainage technique, using a retrospective case-control study design, in terms of managing deep neck infections (DNIs). Methods: Patients presenting to Peking Union Medical College Hospital diagnosed with DNIs were recruited in this study. We analyzed the clinical characteristics of DNI patients and divided them into (a) VAC placement group (26 cases) and (b) traditional drainage group (57 cases) according to whether VAC was placed. The differences in length of stay (LOS), wound healing time, and debridement frequency were compared between the two groups. Results: Eighty-three patients had multiple-space infections, i.e. infection at two or more sites. The debridement frequency of the VAC group was significantly lower than that of the traditional drainage group ( Conclusions: VAC treatment of DNIs has significant advantages in reducing the frequency of debridement and patient suffering, but it does not show significant advantages in wound healing. Randomized trials are still needed to demonstrate its efficacy.
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.