↓ Skip to main content

A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials of delayed primary wound closure in contaminated abdominal wounds

Overview of attention for article published in World Journal of Emergency Surgery, September 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
34 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
73 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
A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials of delayed primary wound closure in contaminated abdominal wounds
Published in
World Journal of Emergency Surgery, September 2014
DOI 10.1186/1749-7922-9-49
Pubmed ID
Authors

Boonying Siribumrungwong, Pinit Noorit, Chumpon Wilasrusmee, Ammarin Thakkinstian

Abstract

A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to compare surgical site infection (SSI) between delayed primary (DPC) and primary wound closure (PC) in complicated appendicitis and other contaminated abdominal wounds. Medline and Scopus were searched from their beginning to November 2013 to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing SSI and length of stay between DPC and PC. Studies' selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment were done by two independent authors. The risk ratio and unstandardised mean difference were pooled for SSI and length of stay, respectively. Among 8 eligible studies, 5 studies were done in complicated appendicitis, 2 with mixed complicated appendicitis and other types of abdominal operation and 1 with ileostomy closure. Most studies (75%) had high risk of bias in sequence generation and allocation concealment. Among 6 RCTs of complicated appendicitis underwent open appendectomy, the SSI between PC and DPC were not significantly different with a risk ratio of 0.89 (95% CI: 0.46, 1.73). DPC had a significantly 1.6 days (95% CI: 1.41, 1.79) longer length of stay than PC. Our evidence suggested there might be no advantage of DPC over PC in reducing SSI in complicated appendicitis. However, this was based on a small number of studies with low quality. A large scale RCT is further required.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 73 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 73 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 13 18%
Other 9 12%
Student > Bachelor 9 12%
Student > Master 7 10%
Researcher 7 10%
Other 10 14%
Unknown 18 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 49 67%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 3%
Engineering 2 3%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 1 1%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 18 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 06 September 2014.
All research outputs
#18,378,085
of 22,763,032 outputs
Outputs from World Journal of Emergency Surgery
#395
of 543 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#170,234
of 238,865 outputs
Outputs of similar age from World Journal of Emergency Surgery
#6
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,763,032 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 543 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.9. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% 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 238,865 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.