Comparison of different types of postoperative dressings without negative pressure in surgical wound healing by primary intention in adults

Reading time approx. 1 minute
This page contains 1 evidence gap
  1. Comparison of different types of postoperative dressings without negative pressure in surgical wound healing by primary intention in adults
Population:
Surgical wound healing by primary intention in adults
Intervention:
Postoperative dressing (without negative pressure)
Comparison:
Standard dressing
Outcomes:
Surgical site infection

What evidence is needed?

Update of existing systematic review is needed.

What evidence is available?

Reliable systematic reviews that show evidence gaps:

None identified

Reliable, but not updated, systematic reviews that show evidence gaps:

Dumville JC, Gray TA, Walter CJ, Sharp CA, Page T, Macefield R, Blencowe N, Milne TKG, Reeves BC, Blazeby J. Dressings for the prevention of surgical site infection. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2016, Issue 12. Art. No.: CD003091. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003091.pub4. More about the review

Information from SBU Enquiry Service:
SBU. Val av postoperativa förband [The choice of postoperative dressing and the risk of surgical site infections]. Stockholm: Statens beredning för medicinsk och social utvärdering (SBU); 2023. SBU:s upplysningstjänst ut202333. More about the report

Registration number:
Published:
Research conducted after publication could potentially change the nature of the evidence.
To top

Evidence gap identifies methods or practices for which no conclusive systematic review of benefits and harms has been published. Gaps in scientific evidence appear on the SBU website to help researchers and granting agencies identify areas that are in need of research or systematic review. An additional objective is to offer healthcare and social service providers a basis for setting priorities.