Comparison 5. Slow absorbable versus fast absorbable sutures (any technique).

Outcome or subgroup title	No. of studies	No. of participants	Statistical method	Effect size
1 Incisional hernia	10	3643	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.81 [0.63, 1.06]
1.1 Same closure method and technique	6	1629	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.86 [0.55, 1.35]
1.2 Different closure method or technique	4	2014	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.79 [0.56, 1.12]
2 Wound infection	11	4100	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	1.16 [0.85, 1.57]
2.1 Same closure method and technique	6	1759	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	1.09 [0.66, 1.81]
2.2 Different closure method or technique	5	2341	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	1.21 [0.79, 1.85]
3 Wound dehiscence	8	3440	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	1.55 [0.92, 2.61]
3.1 Same closure method and technique	3	1195	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	1.93 [0.80, 4.69]
3.2 Different closure method or technique	5	2245	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	1.21 [0.59, 2.49]
4 Sinus or fistula formation	2	911	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.88 [0.05, 16.05]
4.1 Same closure method and technique	1	571	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	2.84 [0.91, 8.81]
4.2 Different closure method or technique	1	340	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.15 [0.01, 2.81]