Question · asked by 1 review
Standard irrigation vs pulsatile irrigation: Adverse events: abscess formation
- Population
- participants undergoing clean, clean‐contaminated, contaminated or dirty surgical procedures
- Intervention
- Standard irrigation
- Comparison
- pulsatile irrigation
- Outcome
- Adverse events: abscess formation
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Standard irrigation vs pulsatile irrigation Adverse events: abscess formation · participants undergoing clean, clean‐contaminated, contaminated or dirty surgical procedures The review found no eligible studies for this question. Intracavity lavage and wound irrigation for prevention of surgical site infection (2017) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | no estimate extracted | Not reported | No studies found |
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 | Not extracted | Not assessed |
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.