Sureshkumar 2018.
| Study characteristics | ||
| Methods |
Design: parallel‐group RCT Study period: not reported |
|
| Participants |
Setting: elective general or colorectal surgery Type of stoma: ileostomy or colostomy Inclusion criteria
Exclusion criteria
|
|
| Interventions | PSSC using subcuticular absorbable suture (n = 40) versus LSC using interrupted non‐absorbable suture (n = 40). No mesh or drain was used during closure in either group. | |
| Outcomes |
|
|
| Notes | The 2 groups were comparable in terms of baseline characteristics. The length of follow‐up was 3 months. The study received no external funding, but it was unclear whether the protocol had been registered. The study authors declared no conflicts of interest. | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Random sequence generation (selection bias) | Low risk | Method and type of randomisation described appropriately. |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Low risk | Method used for randomisation supports allocation concealment. |
| Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes | High risk | Participants and personnel were not blinded (blinding may not be practical in this setting). |
| Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes | High risk | Outcome assessment was not blinded (blinding may not be practical in this setting). |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes | Low risk | Complete outcome data for all participants. |
| Selective reporting (reporting bias) | Unclear risk | Unclear if protocol was registered. |
| Other bias | Low risk | No other sources of bias detected. |
BIQ: Body Image Questionnaire; BMI: body mass index; CDC: Centres for Disease Control and Prevention; LSC: linear skin closure; n: number of participants; PSSC: purse‐string skin closure; POSAS: Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale; RCT: randomised controlled trial; SSI: surgical site infection; VAS: visual analogue scale.