Copyright
©2014 Baishideng Publishing Group Inc.
World J Gastrointest Surg. Dec 27, 2014; 6(12): 241-247
Published online Dec 27, 2014. doi: 10.4240/wjgs.v6.i12.241
Published online Dec 27, 2014. doi: 10.4240/wjgs.v6.i12.241
Ref. | Randomisation technique | Power calculations | Blinding | Intention-to-treat analysis | Concealment |
Dørflinger et al[32] | Consecutive patients | No | Yes | No | Inadequate |
Foster et al[33] | Consecutive patients | No | No | No | Inadequate |
Glough et al[34] | Consecutive patients | No | No | No | Inadequate |
Harimoto et al[35] | Sealed envelop | Yes | No | No | Adequate |
Kotaluoto et al[36] | Consecutive patients | Yes | No | Yes | Inadequate |
Lundblad et al[37] | Consecutive patients | No | No | No | Inadequate |
Pauniaho et al[38] | Consecutive patients | Yes | No | No | Inadequate |
Ralphs et al[39] | Consecutive patients | No | No | No | Inadequate |
Szabó et al[40] | No | No | No | No | Inadequate |
Tan et al[41] | Consecutive patients | Yes | No | Yes | Inadequate |
-
Citation: Sajid MS, McFall MR, Whitehouse PA, Sains PS. Systematic review of absorbable
vs non-absorbable sutures used for the closure of surgical incisions. World J Gastrointest Surg 2014; 6(12): 241-247 - URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1948-9366/full/v6/i12/241.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4240/wjgs.v6.i12.241