Background:Closed incision negative pressure therapy (ciNPT) is an emerging approach to managing closed incisions of patients at risk of postoperative complications. There are primarily 2 different commercially available ciNPT systems. Both systems consist of a single-use, battery-powered device and foam- or gauze-based peel-and-place dressing designed for closed incisions. These systems vary in design, and there are no data comparing outcomes between the 2 systems. Methods:We performed 2 separate meta-analyses to compare surgical site infection (SSI) rates postuse of (1) ciNPT with foam dressing (FOAM) versus conventional dressings and (2) ciNPT with multilayer absorbent dressing (MLA) versus conventional dressings. Results:Seven articles and 2 abstracts met inclusion criteria in the FOAM group (n = 489) versus the control group (n = 489) in meta-analysis 1; 7 articles and 1 abstract met inclusion criteria in the MLA group (n = 532) versus the control group (n = 540) in meta-analysis 2. Meta-analysis 1 showed that patients in the control group were 3.17 times more likely to develop an SSI compared with patients in the FOAM group [weighted mean odds ratios of FOAM group versus control group was 3.17 (P < 0.0001) with the 95% confidence intervals of 2.17-4.65]. Meta-analysis 2 showed no significant difference in SSI rates between patients in the MLA group and patients in the control group [weighted mean odds ratios of MLA group versus control group was 1.70 (P = 0.08) with the 95% confidence intervals of 0.94-3.08]. Conclusions:Comparing outcomes of two different ciNPT systems with a common comparator (conventional dressings) may provide an interim basis for comparing ciNPT systems until further comparative evidence is available. More comparative research is required to determine outcomes in clinical practice.