Question · asked by 1 review
Negative pressure wound therapy vs conventional open wound healing: Cost‐effectiveness
- Population
- adults with open wounds after surgery for sacrococcygeal pilonidal sinus disease
- Intervention
- Negative pressure wound therapy
- Comparison
- conventional open wound healing
- Outcome
- Cost‐effectiveness
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Topical negative pressure wound therapy vs conventional open wound healing Cost‐effectiveness (assessed using quality‐adjusted life years) · adults with open wounds after surgery for sacrococcygeal pilonidal sinus disease The review found no eligible studies for this question. Dressings and topical agents for the management of open wounds after surgical treatment for sacrococcygeal… (2022) · 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dressings and topical agents for the management of open wounds after surgical treatment for sacrococcygeal pilonidal sinus 2022 · 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.