Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2018 Jul 3;7(7):CD012522.
doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD012522.pub2.

Negative pressure wound therapy for open traumatic wounds

Zipporah Iheozor-Ejiofor  1 , Katy Newton, Jo C Dumville, Matthew L Costa, Gill Norman, Julie Bruce
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Negative pressure wound therapy for open traumatic wounds

Zipporah Iheozor-Ejiofor et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. .

Abstract

Background: Traumatic wounds (wounds caused by injury) range from abrasions and minor skin incisions or tears, to wounds with extensive tissue damage or loss as well as damage to bone and internal organs. Two key types of traumatic wounds considered in this review are those that damage soft tissue only and those that involve a broken bone, that is, open fractures. In some cases these wounds are left open and negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) is used as a treatment. This medical device involves the application of a wound dressing through which negative pressure is applied and tissue fluid drawn away from the area. The treatment aims to support wound management, to prepare wounds for further surgery, to reduce the risk of infection and potentially to reduce time to healing (with or without surgical intervention). There are no systematic reviews assessing the effectiveness of NPWT for traumatic wounds.

Objectives: To assess the effects of NPWT for treating open traumatic wounds in people managed in any care setting.

Search methods: In June 2018 we searched the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Ovid MEDLINE (including In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations), Ovid Embase and EBSCO CINAHL Plus. We also searched clinical trials registries for ongoing and unpublished studies, and scanned reference lists of relevant included studies as well as reviews, meta-analyses and health technology reports to identify additional studies. There were no restrictions with respect to language, date of publication or study setting.

Selection criteria: Published and unpublished randomised controlled trials that used NPWT for open traumatic wounds involving either open fractures or soft tissue wounds. Wound healing, wound infection and adverse events were our primary outcomes.

Data collection and analysis: Two review authors independently selected eligible studies, extracted data, carried out a 'Risk of bias' assessment and rated the certainty of the evidence. Data were presented and analysed separately for open fracture wounds and other open traumatic wounds (not involving a broken bone).

Main results: Seven RCTs (1377 participants recruited) met the inclusion criteria of this review. Study sample sizes ranged from 40 to 586 participants. One study had three arms, which were all included in the review. Six studies compared NPWT at 125 mmHg with standard care: one of these studies did not report any relevant outcome data. One further study compared NPWT at 75 mmHg with standard care and NPWT 125mmHg with NPWT 75 mmHg.Open fracture wounds (four studies all comparing NPWT 125 mmHg with standard care)One study (460 participants) comparing NPWT 125 mmHg with standard care reported the proportions of wounds healed in each arm. At six weeks there was no clear difference between groups in the number of participants with a healed, open fracture wound: risk ratio (RR) 1.01 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81 to 1.27); moderate-certainty evidence, downgraded for imprecision.We pooled data on wound infection from four studies (596 participants). Follow-up varied between studies but was approximately 30 days. On average, it is uncertain whether NPWT at 125 mmHg reduces the risk of wound infection compared with standard care (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.20 to 1.13; I2 = 56%); very low-certainty evidence downgraded for risk of bias, inconsistency and imprecision.Data from one study shows that there is probably no clear difference in health-related quality of life between participants treated with NPWT 125 mmHg and those treated with standard wound care (EQ-5D utility scores mean difference (MD) -0.01, 95% CI -0.08 to 0.06; 364 participants, moderate-certainty evidence; physical component summary score of the short-form 12 instrument MD -0.50, 95% CI -4.08 to 3.08; 329 participants; low-certainty evidence downgraded for imprecision).Moderate-certainty evidence from one trial (460 participants) suggests that NPWT is unlikely to be a cost-effective treatment for open fractures in the UK. On average, NPWT was more costly and conferred few additional quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) when compared with standard care. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was GBP 267,910 and NPWT was shown to be unlikely to be cost effective at a range of cost-per-QALYs thresholds. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence for imprecision.Other open traumatic wounds (two studies, one comparing NPWT 125 mmHg with standard care and a three-arm study comparing NPWT 125 mmHg, NPWT 75 mmHg and standard care)Pooled data from two studies (509 participants) suggests no clear difference in risk of wound infection between open traumatic wounds treated with NPWT at 125 mmHg or standard care (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.18); low-certainty evidence downgraded for risk of bias and imprecision.One trial with 463 participants compared NPWT at 75 mmHg with standard care and with NPWT at 125 mmHg. Data on wound infection were reported for each comparison. It is uncertain if there is a difference in risk of wound infection between NPWT 75 mmHg and standard care (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.17 to 1.10; 463 participants) and uncertain if there is a difference in risk of wound infection between NPWT 75 mmHg and 125 mmHg (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.31 to 3.51; 251 participants. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence for risk of bias and imprecision.

Authors' conclusions: There is moderate-certainty evidence for no clear difference between NPWT and standard care on the proportion of wounds healed at six weeks for open fracture wounds. There is moderate-certainty evidence that NPWT is not a cost-effective treatment for open fracture wounds. Moderate-certainty evidence means that the true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different. It is uncertain whether there is a difference in risk of wound infection, adverse events, time to closure or coverage surgery, pain or health-related quality of life between NPWT and standard care for any type of open traumatic wound.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Zipporah Iheozor‐Ejiofor: none known.

Katy Newton: none known.

Jo Dumville: received research funding from the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) UK for the production of systematic reviews focusing on high priority Cochrane Reviews in the prevention and treatment of wounds.

Matthew Costa: was the Chief Investigator of an included study but did not undertake any data extraction or assessment for this study. KCI and Smith & Nephew supplied the hospitals involved in the trial with NWPT dressings at cost for the purposes of the trial. The University of Oxford is paid consultancy fees from UCB and Pluristem for work not related to this review. He receives a small honorarium as an Editor of the Bone and Joint Journal, and as a Course Director for the AO foundation.

Gill Norman: my employment at the University of Manchester was funded through an NIHR (UK National Institute for Health Research) grant focusing on high priority Cochrane reviews in the prevention and treatment of wounds.

Julie Bruce: is a co‐author on a clinical trial included within the review but did not undertake any data extraction or assessment for this study.

Figures

1
1
Study flow diagram
2
2
Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study
3
3
Risk of bias graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies
1.1
1.1. Analysis
Comparison 1 NPWT 125 mmHg versus standard care in open fracture wounds, Outcome 1 Wounds healed (short‐term follow‐up).
1.2
1.2. Analysis
Comparison 1 NPWT 125 mmHg versus standard care in open fracture wounds, Outcome 2 Wound infection (short‐ to medium‐term follow‐up).
1.3
1.3. Analysis
Comparison 1 NPWT 125 mmHg versus standard care in open fracture wounds, Outcome 3 Wound infection: sensitivity analysis.
1.4
1.4. Analysis
Comparison 1 NPWT 125 mmHg versus standard care in open fracture wounds, Outcome 4 Health‐related quality of life at 12 months.
2.1
2.1. Analysis
Comparison 2 NPWT 125 mmHg versus standard care in other open traumatic wounds, Outcome 1 Wound infection (follow‐up unclear).
2.2
2.2. Analysis
Comparison 2 NPWT 125 mmHg versus standard care in other open traumatic wounds, Outcome 2 Pain (short‐term follow‐up).
3.1
3.1. Analysis
Comparison 3 NPWT 75 mmHg versus standard care in other open traumatic wounds, Outcome 1 Wound infection (follow‐up unclear).
4.1
4.1. Analysis
Comparison 4 Different pressures of NPWT in other open traumatic wounds, Outcome 1 Wound infection (follow‐up unclear).
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Update of

  • doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD012522

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

References to studies included in this review

Arti 2016 {published data only}
    1. Arti H, Khorami M, Ebrahimi‐Nejad V. Comparison of negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) and conventional wound dressings in the open fracture wound. Pakistan Journal of Medical Sciences Quarterly 2016;32(1):65‐9. - PMC - PubMed
Chen 2016 {published data only}
    1. Chen R, Huang L, Zheng J, Jia Y, Liu Y, Shan Y. Negative pressure wound therapy for serious dog bites of extremities: a prospective randomized trial. American Journal of Emergency Medicine 2016;34(6):1006‐10. - PubMed
Costa 2017 {published data only}
    1. Achten J, Parsons NR, Bruce J, Petrou S, Tutton E, Willett K, et al. Protocol for a randomised controlled trial of standard wound management versus negative pressure wound therapy in the treatment of adult patients with an open fracture of the lower limb: UK Wound management of Open Lower Limb Fractures (UK WOLFF). BMJ Open 2015;5(9):e009087. [DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-009087] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Costa ML, Achten J, Bruce J, Davis S, Hennings S, Willett K, et al. UK Wound management of Open Lower Limb Fractures (UK WOLLF) ‐ a randomised controlled trial and health economic evaluation of standard wound management versus negative pressure wound therapy in the treatment of adults with an open fracture of the lower limb. Health Technology Assessment (in press).
    1. Costa ML, Achten J, Bruce J, Tutton E, Petrou S, Lamb SE, Parsons NR, UK WOLLF Collaboration. Effect of Negative Pressure Wound Therapy vs Standard Wound Management on 12‐Month Disability Among Adults With Severe Open Fracture of the Lower Limb: The WOLLF Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA 2018;319:2280‐8. - PMC - PubMed
Keskin 2008 {published data only}
    1. Keskin M, Karabekmez FE, Yilmaz E, Tosun Z, Savaci N. Vacuum‐assisted closure of wounds and anxiety. Scandinavian Journal of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery and Hand Surgery 2008;42(4):202‐5. - PubMed
Ondieki 2012 {published data only}
    1. Ondieki JG, Khainga SO, Owilla F, Nangole FW. Outcome of foam versus gauze dressings in negative pressure wound therapy for the management of acute traumatic wounds with soft tissue loss at Kenyatta National Hospital. East African Medical Journal 2012;89(7):230‐40. - PubMed
Stannard 2009 {published data only}
    1. Stannard JP, Volgas DA, Stewart R, McGwin G Jr, Alonso JE. Negative pressure wound therapy after severe open fractures: a prospective randomized study. Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma 2009;23(8):552‐7. - PubMed
Virani 2016 {published data only}
    1. Virani SR, Dahapute AA, Bava SS, Muni SR. Impact of negative pressure wound therapy on open diaphyseal tibial fractures: a prospective randomized trial. Journal of Clinical Orthopaedics and Trauma 2016;7(4):256‐9. - PMC - PubMed

References to studies excluded from this review

Braakenburg 2006 {published data only}
    1. Braakenburg A, Obdeijn MC, Feitz R, Rooij IA, Griethuysen AJ, Klinkenbijl JH. The clinical efficacy and cost effectiveness of the vacuum‐assisted closure technique in the management of acute and chronic wounds: a randomized controlled trial. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 2006;118(2):390‐7. [DOI: 10.1097/01.prs.0000227675.63744.af] - DOI - PubMed
Brown 2012 {published data only}
    1. Brown KV, Guthrie HC, Ramasamy A, Kendrew JM, Clasper J. Modern military surgery: lessons from Iraq and Afghanistan. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery 2012;94 B(4):536‐43. - PubMed
Colom 2006 {published data only}
    1. Colom MJ. Evaluation of a self‐adherent soft silicone dressing for the treatment of hypertrophic postoperative scars: negative pressure wound therapy to treat hematomas and surgical incisions following high‐energy trauma. Journal of Wound Care 2006;15(5):193‐6. - PubMed
Dorafshar 2012 {published data only}
    1. Dorafshar AH, Franczyk M, Gottlieb LJ, Wroblewski KE, Lohman RF. A prospective randomized trial comparing subatmospheric wound therapy with a sealed gauze dressing and the standard vacuum‐assisted closure device. Annals of Plastic Surgery 2012;69(1):79‐84. [DOI: 10.1097/SAP.0b013e318221286c] - DOI - PubMed
Fleischmann 1993 {published data only}
    1. Fleischmann W, Strecker W, Bombelli M, Kinzl L. Vacuum sealing for the treatment of soft tissue damage in open fractures [Vakuumversiegelung zur behandlung des weichteilschadens bei offenen frakturen]. Der Unfallchirurg 1993;96:488‐92. - PubMed
Fleischmann 1995 {published data only}
    1. Fleischmann W, Becker U, Kramer B. Infection prophylaxis by 'vacuum sealing' (VS) of open fractures. Fifth Annual Meeting of the European Tissue Repair Society; 1995, 30 August‐2 September; Padova, Italy. 1995:381.
Jeschke 2004 {published data only}
    1. Jeschke MG, Rose C, Angele P, Füchtmeier B, Nerlich MN, Bolder U. Development of new reconstructive techniques: use of Integra in combination with fibrin glue and negative‐pressure therapy for reconstruction of acute and chronic wounds. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 2004;113(2):525‐30. [DOI: 10.1097/01.PRS.0000100813.39746.5A] - DOI - PubMed
Lesiak 2013 {published data only}
    1. Lesiak AC, Shafritz AB. Negative‐pressure wound therapy. Journal of Hand Surgery 2013;38(9):1828‐32. [DOI: 10.1016/j.jhsa.2013.04.029] - DOI - PubMed
MAS 2006 {published data only}
    1. Medical Advisory Secretariat (MAS). Negative pressure wound therapy: an evidence‐based analysis. Ontario Health Technology Assessment Series 2006;6(14):1‐38. [ISSN: 1915­7398] - PMC - PubMed
Moisidis 2004 {published data only}
    1. Moisidis E, Heath T, Boorer C, Ho K, Deva AK. A prospective, blinded, randomized, controlled clinical trial of topical negative pressure use in skin grafting. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 2004;114(4):917‐22. [DOI: 10.1097/01.PRS.0000133168.57199.E1] - DOI - PubMed
Mouës 2004 {published data only}
    1. Mouës CM, Bemd GJ, Heule F, Hovius SE. A prospective randomized trial comparing vacuum therapy to conventional moist gauze therapy. Second World Union of Wound Healing Societies Meeting; 2004, 8‐13 July; Paris, France. 2004:6. [Abstract A001]
    1. Mouës CM, Bemd GJ, Meerding WJ, Hovius SE. Cost analysis comparing vacuum‐assisted closure wound therapy to conventional moist gauze therapy. Second World Union of Wound Healing Societies Meeting; 2004, 8‐13 July; Paris, France. 2004:87. [Abstract A008]
    1. Mouës CM, Vos MC, Bemd GJ, Stijnen T, Hovius SE. Bacterial load in relation to vacuum‐assisted closure wound therapy. 13th Conference of the European Wound Management Association; 2003, 22‐24 May; Pisa, Italy. 2003:69.
Mouës 2005 {published data only}
    1. Mouës CM, Bemd GC, Meerding WJ, Hovius SE. An economic evaluation of the use of TNP on full‐thickness wounds. Journal of Wound Care 2005;14(5):224‐7. - PubMed
    1. Mouës CM, Vos MC, Bemd GJ, Stijnen T, Hovius SE. Bacterial load in relation to vacuum‐assisted closure wound therapy: a prospective randomized trial. Wound Repair and Regeneration 2004;12(1):11‐7. [DOI: 10.1111/j.1067-1927.2004.12105.x] - DOI - PubMed
Mouës 2007 {published data only}
    1. Mouës CM, Bemd GJ, Heule F, Hovius SE. Comparing conventional gauze therapy to vacuum‐assisted closure wound therapy: a prospective randomised trial. Journal of Plastic and Reconstructive Aesthetic Surgery 2007;60(6):672‐81. [DOI: 10.1016/j.bjps.2006.01.041] - DOI - PubMed
Mouës 2008 {published data only}
    1. Mouës C, Toornenenbergen AW, Heule F, Hop WC, Hovius SE. The role of topical negative pressure in wound repair: expression of biochemical markers in wound fluid during wound healing. Wound Repair and Regeneration 2008;16(4):488‐94. [DOI: 10.1111/j.1524-475X.2008.00395.x] - DOI - PubMed
Rahmanian‐Schwarz 2012 {published data only}
    1. Rahmanian‐Schwarz A, Willkomm L‐M, Gonser P, Hirt B, Schaller H‐E. A novel option in negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) for chronic and acute wound care. Burns 2012;38(4):573‐7. [DOI: 10.1016/j.burns.2011.10.010] - DOI - PubMed
Rovee 2004 {published data only}
    1. Rovee DT. Editor's message [Proceedings of the 2nd World Union of Wound Healing Societies meeting, Paris, France, July 8‐13, 2004]. Wounds 2004;16(12):2‐19.
Stannard 2006 {published data only}
    1. Stannard JP, Robinson JT, Anderson ER, McGwin G, Volgas DA, Alonso JE, et al. Negative pressure wound therapy to treat hematomas and surgical incisions following high‐energy trauma. Journal of Trauma 2006;60(6):1301‐6. - PubMed
Stannard 2012 {published data only}
    1. Mullins A, Paulos M. Cost effectiveness model: comparison of closed incision management using negative pressure and standard of care over clean closed incisions based on a 2012 randomized controlled trial. Value in Health 2012;15:A68.
    1. Stannard JP, Volgas DA, McGwin G, Stewart RL, Obremskey W, Moore T, et al. Incisional negative pressure wound therapy after high‐risk lower extremity fractures. Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma 2012;26(1):37‐42. - PubMed
    1. Stannard JP, Volgas DA, Robinson J, Anglen JO, Santos A. Topical negative pressure therapy as an adjunct to soft tissue healing following open reduction and internal fixation of high risk fractures: preliminary results. Second World Union of Wound Healing Societies Meeting; 2004, 8‐13 July; Paris, France. 2004:19.
Ubbink 2008 {published data only}
    1. Ubbink DT, Westerbos SJ, Nelson EA, Vermeulen H. A systematic review of topical negative pressure therapy for acute and chronic wounds. British Journal of Surgery 2008;95(6):685‐92. [DOI: 10.1002/bjs.6238] - DOI - PubMed
Vikatmaa 2008 {published data only}
    1. Vikatmaa P, Juutilainen V, Kuukasjarvi P, Malmivaara A. Negative pressure wound therapy: a systematic review on effectiveness and safety. European Society for Vascular Surgery 2008;36(4):438‐48. [DOI: 10.1016/j.ejvs.2008.06.010] - DOI - PubMed

Additional references

Alexandrescu 2009
    1. Alexandrescu R, O'Brien SJ, Lecky FE. A review of injury epidemiology in the UK and Europe: some methodological considerations in constructing rates. BMC Health 2009;9:226. - PMC - PubMed
DeBoard 2007
    1. DeBoard RH, Rondeau DF, Kang CS, Sabbaj A, McManus JG. Principles of basic wound evaluation and management in the emergency department. Emergency Medicine Clinics of North America 2007;25:23‐39. - PubMed
Deeks 2011
    1. Deeks JJ, Higgins JP, Altman DG, editor(s). Chapter 9: Analysing data and undertaking meta‐analyses. In: Higgins JP, Green S, editor(s). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from handbook.cochrane.org.
Dumville 2015a
    1. Dumville JC, Land L, Evans D, Peinemann F. Negative pressure wound therapy for treating leg ulcers. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2015, Issue 7. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011354.pub2] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Dumville 2015b
    1. Dumville JC, Owens GL, Crosbie EJ, Peinemann F, Liu Z. Negative pressure wound therapy for treating surgical wounds healing by secondary intention. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2015, Issue 6. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011278.pub2] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Edlich 2010
    1. Edlich RF, Rodeheaver GT, Thacker JG, Lin KY, Drake DB, Mason SS, et al. Revolutionary advances in the management of traumatic wounds in the emergency department during the last 40 years: part 1. Journal of Emergency Medicine 2010;38:40‐50. - PubMed
FDA 2011
    1. US Food, Drug Administration (FDA). Class II special controls guidance document: non‐powered suction apparatus device intended for negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT). www.fda.gov/downloads/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/Guidanc... (accessed 8 February 2016).
Glass 2014
    1. Glass GE, Murphy GF, Esmaeili A, Lai LM, Nachahal J. Systematic review of molecular mechanism of action of negative‐pressure wound therapy. British Journal of Surgery 2014;101:1627‐36. - PubMed
Gustilo 1976
    1. Gustilo RB, Anderson JT. Prevention of infection in the treatment of one thousand and twenty‐five open fractures of long bones: retrospective and prospective analyses. Journal of Bone Joint Surgery (American Volume) 1976;58:453‐8. - PubMed
Gustilo 1984
    1. Gustilo RB, Mendoza RM, Williams DN. Problems in the management of type III (severe) open fractures: a new classification of type III open fractures. Journal of Trauma 1984;24:742‐6. - PubMed
Guy 2012
    1. Guy H, Grothier I. Using negative pressure therapy in wound healing. Nursing Times 2012;108(18):20. - PubMed
HHS 2009
    1. Office of Inspector General, US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Comparison of prices for negative pressure wound therapy pumps. oig.hhs.gov/oei/reports/oei‐02‐07‐00660.pdf. OEI‐02‐07‐00660 (accessed 8 February 2016).
Higgins 2003
    1. Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta‐analyses. BMJ 2003;327(7414):557‐60. - PMC - PubMed
Higgins 2011a
    1. Higgins JP, Green S, editor(s). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from handbook.cochrane.org.
Higgins 2011b
    1. Higgins JP, Altman DG, Sterne JA, editor(s). Chapter 8: Assessing risk of bias in included studies. In: Higgins JP, Green S, editor(s). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from handbook.cochrane.org.
Higgins 2011c
    1. Higgins JP, Deeks JJ, Altman DG, editor(s). Chapter 16: Special topics in statistics. In: Higgins JP, Green S, editor(s). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from handbook.cochrane.org.
Higgins 2011d
    1. Higgins JP, Deeks JJ. Chapter 7: Selecting studies and collecting data. In: Higgins JP, Green S, editor(s). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from handbook.cochrane.org.
Hollander 1995
    1. Hollander JE, Singer AJ, Valentine S, Henry MC. Wound registry: development and validation. Annals of Emergency Medicine 1995;5(25):475‐85. - PubMed
KCI Medical 2012
    1. KCI Medical. Science behind wound therapy. www.kci1.com/KCI1/sciencebehindwoundtherapy (accessed 8 February 2016).
Lefebvre 2011
    1. Lefebvre C, Manheimer E, Glanville J. Chapter 6: Searching for studies. In: Higgins JP, Green S, editor(s). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from handbook.cochrane.org.
Liberati 2009
    1. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gotzsche PC, Ioannidis JP, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta‐analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Medicine 2009;6:e1000100. - PMC - PubMed
Mangram 1999
    1. Mangram AJ, Horan TC, Pearson ML, Silver LC, Jarvis WR. Guideline for prevention of surgical site infection. Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology 1999;20(4):247‐78. - PubMed
NICE 2017
    1. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Fractures (complex): assessment and management. NICE guideline [NG37]. Last updated November 2017. www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng37 (accessed 14 February 2018). - PubMed
Parmar 1998
    1. Parmar MK, Torri V, Stewart L. Extracting summary statistics to perform meta‐analyses of the published literature for survival endpoints. Statistics in Medicine 1998;17:2815‐34. - PubMed
Peinemann 2011
    1. Peinemann F, Sauerland S. Negative‐pressure wound therapy: systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Deutsches Arzteblatt International 2011;108:381‐9. - PMC - PubMed
RevMan 2014 [Computer program]
    1. Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration. Review Manager 5 (RevMan 5). Version 5.3. Copenhagen: Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2014.
Saxena 2004
    1. Saxena V, Hwang CW, Huang S, Eichbaum Q, Ingber D, Orgill DP. Vacuum‐assisted closure: microdeformations of wounds and cell proliferation. Plastic and Reconstive Surgery 2004;11(5):1086‐96. - PubMed
Schünemann 2011a
    1. Schünemann HJ, Oxman AD, Higgins JP, Vist GE, Glasziou P, Guyatt GH. Chapter 11: Presenting results and 'Summary of findings' tables. In: Higgins JP, Green S, editor(s). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from handbook.cochrane.org.
Schünemann 2011b
    1. Schünemann HJ, Oxman AD, Higgins JP, Deeks JJ, Glasziou P, Guyatt GH. Chapter 12: Interpreting results and drawing conclusions. In: Higgins JP, Green S, editor(s). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from handbook.cochrane.org.
SIGN 2017
    1. Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN). Search filters. www.sign.ac.uk/search‐filters.html (accessed 12 September 2017).
Sterne 2011
    1. Sterne JA, Egger M, Moher D. Chapter 10: Addressing reporting biases. In: Higgins JP, Green S, editor(s). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from handbook.cochrane.org.
Thompson 1999
    1. Thompson SG, Sharp SJ. Explaining heterogeneity in meta‐analysis: a comparison of methods. Statistics in Medicine 1999;18:2693‐708. - PubMed
Webster 2014
    1. Webster J, Scuffham P, Stankiewicz M, Chaboyer WP. Negative pressure wound therapy for skin grafts and surgical wounds healing by primary intention. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2014, Issue 10. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009261.pub3] - DOI - PubMed
WHO 2014
    1. World Health Organization (WHO). Injuries and violence: the facts. 2014. apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/149798/1/9789241508018_eng.pdf (accessed 31 October 2016).

References to other published versions of this review

Newton 2017
    1. Newton K, Wordsworth M, Allan AY, Dumville JC. Negative pressure wound therapy for traumatic wounds. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2017, Issue 1. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012522] - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms