A systematic review with meta-analysis on prophylactic negative pressure wound therapy versus standard dressing for obese women after caesarean section.

The surgical-site infection result was low certainty and was not confirmed by Bayesian or trial sequential analysis. Six included studies were at high risk of bias, mainly because outcome data were missing or unclear. No included study was double-blinded. Some subgroup analyses had too few trials or patients to be convincing. Definitions of complications and negative-pressure device settings varied across studies. Most trials were conducted in America or Australia, limiting generalisability. Some included trials had commercial sponsors, which may bias reporting. Publication-bias assessment suggested funnel asymmetry, although formal tests were underpowered. The number of participants analysed differed by outcome (5708 total, 5522 for infection and 4815 for overall complications), because not all studies reported each outcome.

The review was funded by the Sichuan University 0 to 1 innovation research project and the West China Nursing Discipline Development Special Fund Project. The authors declared no conflict of interest. Some included trials had commercial sponsors.

Do not conclude that negative-pressure wound therapy reliably prevents infection after caesarean section in obese women. The pooled reduction was not confirmed by Bayesian or trial sequential analysis, and overall wound complications did not differ.