Cochrane · systematic review · CD010425
Subcutaneous closure versus no subcutaneous closure after non‐caesarean surgical procedures
Gurusamy, KS, Toon, CD, Davidson, BR · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2014 · Cochrane Library
WoundsAMSTAR 2: not assessed
SoF tableOnly the outcomes this review put in its Summary of Findings table are listed (the Cochrane Handbook caps them at about seven per comparison). Its other analyses are not shown here.
Questions
4
current version
GRADE rated
4
No studies
0
Included studies
NR
No studies 0 · 0%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 4 · 100%Low 0 · 0%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%
Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.
Questions and results
Subcutaneous closure compared to no subcutaneous closure for non‐caesarean surgery
Population: participants having non‐caesarean surgery
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Superficial surgical site infection Subcutaneous closure vs no subcutaneous closure | RR 0.84 [0.53, 1.33] | 6 studies · 815 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Superficial wound dehiscence Subcutaneous closure vs no subcutaneous closure | RR 0.56 [0.22, 1.41] | 2 studies · 215 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Deep wound dehiscence Subcutaneous closure vs no subcutaneous closure | RR 0.25 [0.03, 2.11] | 1 study · 60 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Hospital stay Subcutaneous closure vs no subcutaneous closure | no estimate extracted | 3 studies · 434 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, inconsistency |