Negative pressure wound therapy versus usual care in patients with surgical wound healing by secondary intention in the UK (SWHSI-2): an open-label, multicentre, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial.

Name: Αlpha¹ Rigor Record — Negative pressure wound therapy versus usual care in patients with surgical wound healing by secondary intention in the UK (SWHSI-2): an open-label, multicentre, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial.
Item: Negative pressure wound therapy versus usual care in patients with surgical wound healing by secondary intention in the UK (SWHSI-2): an open-label, multicentre, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial.
Rating: 100
Author: Αlpha¹

Arundel C, Mandefield L, Fairhurst C, Baird K, Gkekas A, Saramago P, Chetter I, SWHSI-2 Trial Investigators

Paper source

Read full text (PMC)

Embed this Rigor badge

Αlpha¹ Rigor Review — 4.5★ (Strong), 0 critical, 2 high issues for “Negative pressure wound therapy versus usual care in patients with surgical wound healing by secondary intention in the UK (SWHSI-2): an open-label, multicentre, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial.”

Links back to this Rigor Record.

Αlpha¹ Editorial

This rigor review was examined and confirmed by Αlpha¹ Editorial · August 15, 2026

Αlpha¹ Rigor Review

Rigor Reviewed

4.5 / 5

Strong — minor issues to address

Interventional Study

Critical

High-priority

How this rating was calculated▸

Started at 5★ — deductions

IntegrityIntegrity concern−0.5★

Model-reported confidence: highReviewer agreement: highEngine: 7.39.0Source: full text

Not verified in this report

The numeric-impossibility checks (GRIM/GRIMMER/DEBIT/SPRITE) did not run: 8 reported means were read, and their group size is not stated where the values are printed (this source has no machine-readable table structure). These checks need the count the mean was averaged over, so none was performed.

Problems surfaced1 type

Numerical inconsistencies1

Values that contradict each other or are impossible for the stated sample: recomputed p-values and test statistics, GRIM/GRIMMER checks on summary numbers, percentages against their own counts, totals against their parts, and estimates against their own confidence intervals.

Internal contradictions in the reported numbersAssessed

This Αlpha¹ Rigor Review uses AI Rigor Reviewers trained on a curated corpus of high-fidelity and retracted papers, with expert supervision and curation. It can still make mistakes; verify each finding against the source before relying on it.

This is a well-conducted and well-reported pragmatic randomised controlled trial with a rigorous design, clear ethical approvals, and appropriate statistical methods. The main weaknesses are minor reporting gaps: the data availability DOI appears incorrect, the CONSORT guideline is not explicitly stated, and there is a small discrepancy in the adverse event counts between the abstract and Table 3.

Both reviewers independently scored all dimensions as pass, with high agreement. The study type is interventional (RCT). The statistics verification component checked 8 reported tests and found all consistent, but coverage is limited to tests with test statistics and df or effect estimates with CIs; threshold-only p-values and resampling-based p-values were not machine-verified. The citation check found no retracted or unresolved references.

6 major claims checked against the paper's own evidence: all adequately supported.

Efficacy claim is anchored to an adequate endpoint and a meaningful effect.

Recomputed 8 tests: 8 consistent, 0 inconsistent; 1 recomputed directly from the reported test statistics, 7 via agent-written checks.

1 integrity concern flagged (0 high).

Reporting

Eight Dimensions8 pass

The introduction and 'Research in context' sections cite a Cochrane systematic review that identified only two small, low-quality trials, and a meta-analysis of 48 low-quality studies, establishing the need for a robust RCT. The rationale for the trial is clearly linked to the absence of comparative evidence and the increasing use of NPWT. The paper explicitly addresses limitations of prior research, noting the small size, low quality, and risk of bias in previous studies, and the lack of adequate assessment of time to healing.

Sub-criteria

prior work citedADEQUATE

premise rationaleADEQUATE

limitations addressedADEQUATE

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 90% conf

The paper establishes a clear scientific premise, citing prior evidence and a Cochrane review, and provides a logical rationale for the trial.

Evidence

direct quote[Introduction, Research in context]

“A Cochrane systematic review of NPWT for SWHSI identified two small, low-quality randomised controlled trials and recommended caution when interpreting the findings and that further high-quality randomised controlled trials be conducted.”