Summary of findings 2. NPWT 125 mmHg compared with standard care in other open traumatic wounds.
| NPWT 125 mmHg compared with standard care in other open traumatic wounds | ||||||
| Patient or population: other open traumatic wounds Setting: rabies clinic and orthopaedic ward Intervention: NPWT 125 mmHg Comparison: standard care (other dressings) | ||||||
| Outcomes | Anticipated absolute effects* (95% CI) | Relative effect (95% CI) | № of participants (studies) | Certainty of the evidence (GRADE) | Comments | |
| Risk with standard care | Risk with NPWT 125 mmHg | |||||
| Complete wound healing | Not estimable | Not estimable | Not estimable | Not estimable | Not estimable | One study reported time to complete healing but this was stratified by infection status and presented as mean data when it was not clear that all wounds had healed. Data were not analysed further |
|
Wound infection Follow‐up: not clear |
103 per 1000 | 63 per 1000 (32 to 121) | RR 0.61 (0.31 to 1.18) | 509 (2 studies) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ Low1 |
There is no clear difference in NPWT 125 mmHg compared with standard care on risk of wound infection from current evidence. |
| Adverse events | Not estimable | Not estimable | Not estimable | Not estimable | Not estimable | ‐ |
| Time to closure or coverage surgery | Not estimable | Not estimable | Not estimable | Not estimable | Not estimable | ‐ |
|
Pain NRS from 0 (no pain) to 10 (worst possible pain) Follow‐up: 6 to 18 days |
The mean pain score in the control group was 4.4 units | The mean pain score in the intervention group was 0.3 units higher (0.22 lower to 0.82 higher) | ‐ | 51 (1 study) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ Low2 |
There is no clear, clinically meaningful difference, in pain score between the intervention groups from current evidence. |
| *The risk in the intervention group (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the median risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI). CI: confidence interval; NRS: numeric rating scale; RR: risk ratio | ||||||
| GRADE Working Group grades of evidence High certainty: we are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect Moderate certainty: we are moderately confident in the effect estimate: the true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different Low certainty: our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: the true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect Very low certainty: we have very little confidence in the effect estimate: the true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect | ||||||
1Downgraded two levels: once for serious risk of bias (no blind outcome assessment and loss to follow‐up) and once due to imprecision due to small sample size. 2Downgraded two levels: once for serious risk of bias and once for serious imprecision.