↓ Skip to main content

The impacts of different embolization techniques on splenic artery embolization for blunt splenic injury: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Military Medical Research, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
51 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
61 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The impacts of different embolization techniques on splenic artery embolization for blunt splenic injury: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Published in
Military Medical Research, May 2017
DOI 10.1186/s40779-017-0125-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jing-Jing Rong, Dan Liu, Ming Liang, Qing-Hua Wang, Jing-Yang Sun, Quan-Yu Zhang, Cheng-Fei Peng, Feng-Qi Xuan, Li-Jun Zhao, Xiao-Xiang Tian, Ya-Ling Han

Abstract

Splenic artery embolization (SAE) has been an effective adjunct to the Non-operative management (NOM) for blunt splenic injury (BSI). However, the optimal embolization techniques are still inconclusive. To further understand the roles of different embolization locations and embolic materials in SAE, we conducted this system review and meta-analyses. Clinical studies related to SAE for adult patients were researched in electronic databases, included PubMed, Embase, ScienceDirect and Google Scholar Search (between October 1991 and March 2013), and relevant information was extracted. To eliminate the heterogeneity, a sensitivity analysis was conducted on two reduced study sets. Then, the pooled outcomes were compared and the quality assessments were performed using Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). The SAE success rate, incidences of life-threatening complications of different embolization techniques were compared by χ(2) test in 1st study set. Associations between different embolization techniques and clinical outcomes were evaluated by fixed-effects model in 2nd study set. Twenty-three studies were included in 1st study set. And then, 13 of them were excluded, because lack of the necessary details of SAE. The remaining 10 studies comprised 2nd study set, and quality assessments were performed using NOS. In 1st set, the primary success rate is 90.1% and the incidence of life-threatening complications is 20.4%, though the cases which required surgical intervention are very few (6.4%). For different embolization locations, there was no obvious association between primary success rate and embolization location in both 1st and 2nd study sets (P > 0.05). But in 2nd study set, it indicated that proximal embolization reduced severe complications and complications needed surgical management. As for the embolic materials, the success rate between coil and gelfoam is not significant. However, coil is associated with a lower risk of life-threatening complications, as well as less complications requiring surgical management. Different embolization techniques affect the clinical outcomes of SAE. The proximal embolization is the best option due to the less life-threatening complications. For commonly embolic material, coil is superior to gelfoam for fewer severe complications and less further surgery management.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 61 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 61 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 11 18%
Student > Master 5 8%
Lecturer 5 8%
Researcher 4 7%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 7%
Other 13 21%
Unknown 19 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 32 52%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 5%
Computer Science 1 2%
Neuroscience 1 2%
Engineering 1 2%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 23 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 August 2017.
All research outputs
#16,725,651
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Military Medical Research
#257
of 443 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#200,100
of 329,744 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Military Medical Research
#6
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 443 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.9. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 329,744 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.