Question · asked by 1 review
Primary (complete) wound closure vs Secondary (partial) wound closure: Adverse effects (reactionary bleeding)
- Population
- Adults with mandibular third molars requiring removal
- Intervention
- Primary (complete) wound closure
- Comparison
- Secondary (partial) wound closure
- Outcome
- Adverse effects (reactionary bleeding)
It is very uncertain whether primary (complete) wound closure changes adverse effects (reactionary bleeding) compared with secondary (partial) wound closure (very low certainty).
What each review found
Current versions onlyNo studies found 0 · 0%GRADE not reported 0 · 0%Very low 2 · 100%Low 0 · 0%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%
| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Primary (complete) wound closure vs Secondary (partial) wound closure Adverse effects (reactionary bleeding) · Adults with mandibular third molars requiring removal · up to 30 days It is very uncertain whether primary (complete) wound closure changes adverse effects (reactionary bleeding) compared with secondary (partial) wound closure (very low certainty). Surgical techniques for the removal of mandibular wisdom teeth (2020) · Cochrane All outcomes | RR 0.41 [0.11, 1.47] | 1 study · 82 participants | Very low |
Primary (complete) wound closure vs Secondary (partial) wound closure Adverse effects (reactionary bleeding) · Adults with mandibular third molars requiring removal · up to 30 days It is very uncertain whether primary (complete) wound closure changes adverse effects (reactionary bleeding) compared with secondary (partial) wound closure (very low certainty). Surgical techniques for the removal of mandibular wisdom teeth (2014) · Cochrane All outcomesearlier version CD004345.PUB2, superseded | RR 0.41 [0.11, 1.47] | 1 study · 82 participants | Very low |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Surgical techniques for the removal of mandibular wisdom teeth 2020 · Cochrane All outcomes | 2019-07 | Not listed | 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.