Negative pressure wound therapy vs standard dressing: Wound dehiscence
Negative pressure wound therapy showed no clear difference in dehiscence (proportion of participants in each group with wound… compared with standard dressing (moderate certainty).
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Negative pressure wound therapy vs standard dressing Dehiscence (proportion of participants in each group with wound dehiscence; · adult patients with surgical wounds healing by primary closure Negative pressure wound therapy showed no clear difference in dehiscence (proportion of participants in each group with wound… compared with standard dressing (moderate certainty). Negative pressure wound therapy for surgical wounds healing by primary closure (2022) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | RR 0.97 [0.82, 1.16] | 23 studies · 8724 participants | Moderate |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Negative pressure wound therapy for surgical wounds healing by primary closure 2022 · 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.