2019
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhin.2018.07.035
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A systematic review of surgical site infections following day surgery: a frequentist and a Bayesian meta-analysis of prevalence

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
5
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2025
2025

Publication Types

Select...
7
2
1

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 11 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 97 publications
(63 reference statements)
0
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“…According to the study by Green et al, the most common reasons for admission were unexpected surgical complexity, pain, postoperative nausea and vomiting and late finish [38]. Regarding surgical site infection after surgery through same-day surgery, epidemiological studies conclude that the rate is low [39][40][41][42][43]. Also, not a single surgical site infection was recorded in our study.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 42%
“…According to the study by Green et al, the most common reasons for admission were unexpected surgical complexity, pain, postoperative nausea and vomiting and late finish [38]. Regarding surgical site infection after surgery through same-day surgery, epidemiological studies conclude that the rate is low [39][40][41][42][43]. Also, not a single surgical site infection was recorded in our study.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 42%
“…Reports have shown that operative time and hospital stay time are positively correlated with SSI [30,31] . Diane Pivot's results revealed that the overall SSI prevalence for day surgery was approximately 1.36% and was probably lower than the prevalence of SSI in conventional surgery [32] . In our study, through comprehensive preparation and optimization of the operation procedure (reverse resection order of E-N/SSM), the operation process was smoother, the levels of operation were clearer, and the operation time was obviously shortened compared with other studies [20,33,34] .…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 95%
“…There are a number of publications about the strengths and disadvantages of each method [18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26]. We refer the interested reader to these references.…”
Section: Inferential Statisticsmentioning
confidence: 99%