Comparison 1. Absorbable sutures versus non‐absorbable sutures (any closure or technique).

Outcome or subgroup title	No. of studies	No. of participants	Statistical method	Effect size
1 Incisional hernia	17	4720	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	1.07 [0.86, 1.32]
1.1 Same closure technique and method in each group	15	4411	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	1.13 [0.95, 1.34]
1.2 Different closure technique or method in each group	2	309	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	2.06 [0.07, 62.94]
2 Wound infection	28	8304	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	1.01 [0.86, 1.19]
2.1 Same closure technique and method in each group	22	7363	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	1.00 [0.87, 1.15]
2.2 Different closure technique or method in each group	6	941	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	1.15 [0.56, 2.36]
3 Wound dehiscence	33	8851	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.82 [0.58, 1.17]
3.1 Same closure technique and method In each group	25	7647	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.77 [0.54, 1.10]
3.2 Different closure technique or method in each group	8	1204	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	1.46 [0.42, 5.14]
4 Sinus or fistula formation	19	5470	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.49 [0.26, 0.94]
4.1 Same closure technique and method in each group	16	4934	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.43 [0.26, 0.73]
4.2 Different closure technique or method in each group	3	536	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	1.16 [0.06, 21.09]
5 Hernia and type of incision	14	4258	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	1.14 [0.96, 1.36]
5.1 Midline incision only (same technique)	8	3229	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	1.15 [0.95, 1.39]
5.2 Other incisions, combination of incision (same technique)	6	1029	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	1.09 [0.65, 1.83]