Are Specific Body Sites Prone for Wound Infection After Skin Surgery? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Identifying risk factors for wound infection may guide clinical practice for optimal use of perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis in dermatologic surgery. OBJECTIVE: To summarize the current evidence whether specific body sites have higher risks for surgical site infections (SSI). METHODS: The systematic literature search included MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, and trial registers. Only observational studies qualified for inclusion and meta-analysis. We assessed the risk of bias according to the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. RESULTS: Eighteen studies with 33,086 surgical wounds were eligible. Eight studies were of good, 4 of fair, and 6 of poor quality. The mean infection rate was 4.08%. Meta-analysis showed that the lips had significantly higher infection rates. The lower extremity and ears had or tended toward a higher risk for infection, but studies were clinically heterogeneous. A large prospective trial found that surgical wounds on the hands were at higher risk for infection. The trunk showed the lowest infection rate. The risk for SSI in other body locations was not different or remained uncertain because of substantial heterogeneity among studies. CONCLUSION: Lips, lower extremities, and probably ears and hands may have a higher risk for wound infection after skin surgery. The trunk showed the lowest infection rate.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".