Agrawal 2014.
| Methods |
RCT Methods to control for contributory patient factors: none described |
|
| Participants |
Age: Group 1 (mean): 37 years Group 2 (mean): 36.5 years Group 3 (mean): 34.7 years Gender: Group 1 (%): 76.9% Female Group 2 (%): 81.0% Female Group 3 (%): 71.8% Female Types of incisions: all participants received a vertical midline incision Types of surgery: Group 1 (% emergent): 68.6% Group 2 (% emergent): 65.4% Group 3 (% emergent): 67.5% Contamination classification of included participants: Group 1 (% contaminated): 27.3% Group 2 (% contaminated): 25.5% Group 3 (% contaminated): 33.3% Prognostic patient factors: Average BMI: Group 1 22.5; Group 2 22.8; Group 3 21.6 Malignancy (%): Group 1 5%; Group 2 3.6%; Group 3 6% Inclusion criteria: elective or emergent gynaecology cases or emergency general surgery cases Exclusion criteria: patients with previous "Burst" Abdomen |
|
| Interventions |
Comparisons reported: Group 1: Suture: Prolene (monofilament, non‐absorbable) Suturing technique: continuous Closure method: mass Group 2: Sutures: Prolene (monofilament, non‐absorbable) Suturing technique: "X Technique" (interrupted) Closure method: mass Group 3: Sutures: Prolene (monofilament, non‐absorbable) Suturing technique: modified Smead Jones (interrupted) Closure method: mass Surgeon characteristics: not stated |
|
| Outcomes | Dehiscence: Intra‐abdominal components in the wound (30‐day follow‐up) | |
| Notes | Groups 2 & 3 combined into "Interrupted" closure for analysis | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Random sequence generation (selection bias) | Low risk | Codes from randomization.com using permuted block design |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Low risk | Sealed, opaque envelopes |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) All outcomes | Unclear risk | Not specifically addressed |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes | Low risk | No dropouts over study period |
| Selective reporting (reporting bias) | Low risk | There was no evidence of selective reporting |
| Other bias | Low risk | The study appears to be free of other sources of bias |