Other important outcomes such as quality of life, long-term patient outcomes and use of healthcare resources were not reported in these trials.\n\nOverall, 6.5% (39/602 participants, four trials) developed SB525334 supplier superficial surgical site infections. There was no significant difference between the groups in the proportion of participants who developed superficial surgical site infections (RR 0.73; 95% CI 0.40 to 1.33). A total of 23 participants (23/625 (3.7%), four trials) developed superficial wound dehiscence. Twenty-two of the 23 participants belonged

to the interrupted suture group. The proportion of participants who developed superficial wound dehiscence was statistically significantly lower in the continuous suture group compared to the interrupted suture group Selleck β-Nicotinamide (RR 0.08; 95% CI 0.02 to 0.35). Most of these wound dehiscences were reported in two recent trials in which the continuous skin suture groups received 123 absorbable subcuticular sutures while the interrupted skin suture groups received non-absorbable transcutaneous sutures. The non-absorbable sutures were removed seven to nine days after surgery in the interrupted sutures groups

whilst sutures in the comparator groups were not removed, being absorbable. The continuous suture technique with absorbable suture does not require suture removal and provides support for the wound for a longer period of time. This may have contributed to the ALK inhibitor difference between the two groups in the proportion of participants who developed superficial wound dehiscence. There was no significant difference in the length of the hospital stay between the two groups (MD -1.40 days; 95% CI -7.14 to 4.34).\n\nAuthors’ conclusions\n\nSuperficial wound dehiscence may be reduced by using continuous subcuticular sutures. However, there is uncertainty about this because of the quality of the evidence. Besides, the nature of the suture material used may have led to this observation, as the continuous suturing technique used suture material that did not need to be removed, whereas the comparator used interrupted (non-absorbable)

sutures that did need to be removed. Differences in the methods of skin closure have the potential to affect patient outcomes and use of healthcare resources. Further well-designed trials at low risk of bias are necessary to determine which type of suturing is better.”
“Background\n\nMortality rates among patients with sepsis, severe sepsis or septic shock ranges from 27% to 54%. Empirical broad-spectrum antimicrobial treatment is aimed at achieving adequate antimicrobial therapy and thus reducing mortality. However, there is a risk that empirical broad-spectrum antimicrobial treatment can expose patients to overuse of antimicrobials. De-escalation has been proposed as a strategy to replace empirical broad-spectrum antimicrobial treatment with a narrower antimicrobial therapy.