Summary of findings 2. Shaving compared with no hair removal for participants undergoing surgery.
| Shaving compared with no hair removal for participants undergoing surgery | ||||||
| Patient or population: people undergoing surgery Setting: hospital Intervention: shaving Comparison: no hair removal | ||||||
| Outcomes | Anticipated absolute effects* (95% CI) | Relative effect (95% CI) | № of participants (studies) | Certainty of the evidence (GRADE) | Comments | |
| Risk with no hair removal | Risk with shaving | |||||
| Surgical site infection (SSIs) assessed with: proportion of SSIs follow‐up: range 10 days to 3 months | Study population | RR 1.82 (1.05 to 3.14) | 1706 (7 RCTs) | ⊕⊕⊕⊝ Moderate 1 | Pooled meta‐analysis suggests the risk of SSI is probably lower in people who do not have hair removed than in those who have hair removed with a razor. | |
| 21 per 1000 | 17 more SSIs per 1000 (1 more to 45 more) | |||||
| Wound complications assessed with: proportion of stitch abscesses follow‐up: range 7 to 10 days | Study population | RR 1.00 (0.21 to 4.66) | 80 (1 RCT) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ Low 2 | It is unclear whether there is a difference in the incidence of stitch abscesses between no hair removal and hair removal with a razor. | |
| 75 per 1000 | 0 difference in complications per 1000 (59 fewer to 275 more) | |||||
| Length of stay assessed with: number of days follow‐up: 1 month | The mean length of stay for 66 participants who had hair removed with a razor was 4.6 days, and the mean length of stay for 70 participants who had no hair removed was 4.3 days. | ‐ | 136 (1 RCT) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ Low 3 | There may be little difference in length of stay between people who have hair removed with a razor and those who do not have hair removed. | |
| Cost follow‐up: mean 1 month | The cost of razors for 100 people was GBP 14. | ‐ | 278 (1 RCT) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ Very low 4 | It is uncertain whether there is a difference in cost between people who have had hair removed with a razor and those who have not had hair removed. | |
| *The risk in the intervention group (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI). CI: confidence interval; RCT: randomised controlled trial; 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 one level for serious imprecision because of wide confidence intervals. 2Downgraded two levels for very serious imprecision due to small sample size and wide confidence intervals. 3Downgraded two levels for serious imprecision due to small sample size. 4Downgraded one level for serious imprecision due to small sample size and two levels for very serious indirectness, as only one aspect of treatment costs was assessed.