Study	Reason for exclusion
Al‐Inany 2002	Wrong intervention
Albert 2012	No acute wounds were included.
Anderson 2014	Feasibility study. Predefined criteria used to assess feasibility included: recruitment (> 75% participation); loss to follow‐up (< 10%); intervention fidelity (= 95%); and interrater reliability (kappa = 0.8). Assessment of clinical outcomes was not planned or conducted.
Banasiewicz 2013	Included infected wounds
Bondokji 2011	Prospective cohort study
Braakenburg 2006	Chronic and acute wounds were reported together, and further information was not available.
Chiang 2017	Open wounds
Chio 2010	Skin graft study
Dorafshar 2012	The study used NPWT to treat existing non‐healing skin graft wounds.
Eisenhardt 2012	Skin graft study; no inclusion of wounds healing by primary closure
Grauhan 2013	Quasi‐randomised study: "A total of 156 patients were enrolled and allocated to 2 study groups, alternating according to the time of operation"
Hu 2009	Acute, subacute, and chronic wounds were included. Acute wounds were defined as those that had been "open" for less than 1 week.
Johannesson 2008	The intervention dressing was not a continuous negative pressure device.
Kim 2007	The study was not a randomised controlled trial.
Li 2016	Quasi‐randomisation (by odd and even numbers)
Llanos 2006	Skin graft study
Moisidis 2004	Skin graft study; no inclusion of wounds healing by primary closure
Mouës 2004	No inclusion of acute wounds
Mouës 2007	No inclusion of acute wounds
Pellino 2014	Non‐randomised study in people with Crohn's disease
Petkar 2012	Skin graft study
Rahmanian‐Schwarz 2012	Included chronic and acute wounds, and these were not separately reported
Visser 2017	The vacuum therapy device was a syringe inserted subcutaneously into the dressing, which was used to create a vacuum. Consequently, it was not a standard, continuous pressure device.
Yu 2017	A drain was left inside the wound, so not strictly a primarily closed wound.

NPWT: negative pressure wound therapy