All irrigation vs no irrigation: Adverse events
All irrigation showed no clear difference in adverse events compared with no irrigation (low certainty).
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
All irrigation vs no irrigation Adverse events · participants undergoing clean, clean‐contaminated, contaminated or dirty surgical procedures All irrigation showed no clear difference in adverse events compared with no irrigation (low certainty). Intracavity lavage and wound irrigation for prevention of surgical site infection (2017) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | RR 1.05 [0.76, 1.44] | 3 studies · 403 participants | Low |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intracavity lavage and wound irrigation for prevention of surgical site infection 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | Not reported | list not extracted yet | Not assessed |
Studies behind the findings
None of these reviews ties its included studies to this outcome in the data here. Cochrane reviews and reviews with headline outcomes only do not list their studies yet.
How reviews are matched to this question
Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.