↓ Skip to main content

Bologna guidelines for diagnosis and management of adhesive small bowel obstruction (ASBO): 2017 update of the evidence-based guidelines from the world society of emergency surgery ASBO working group

Overview of attention for article published in World Journal of Emergency Surgery, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (84th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
17 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
318 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
565 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
Bologna guidelines for diagnosis and management of adhesive small bowel obstruction (ASBO): 2017 update of the evidence-based guidelines from the world society of emergency surgery ASBO working group
Published in
World Journal of Emergency Surgery, June 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13017-018-0185-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Richard P. G. ten Broek, Pepijn Krielen, Salomone Di Saverio, Federico Coccolini, Walter L. Biffl, Luca Ansaloni, George C. Velmahos, Massimo Sartelli, Gustavo P. Fraga, Michael D. Kelly, Frederick A. Moore, Andrew B. Peitzman, Ari Leppaniemi, Ernest E. Moore, Johannes Jeekel, Yoram Kluger, Michael Sugrue, Zsolt J. Balogh, Cino Bendinelli, Ian Civil, Raul Coimbra, Mark De Moya, Paula Ferrada, Kenji Inaba, Rao Ivatury, Rifat Latifi, Jeffry L. Kashuk, Andrew W. Kirkpatrick, Ron Maier, Sandro Rizoli, Boris Sakakushev, Thomas Scalea, Kjetil Søreide, Dieter Weber, Imtiaz Wani, Fikri M. Abu-Zidan, Nicola De’Angelis, Frank Piscioneri, Joseph M. Galante, Fausto Catena, Harry van Goor

Abstract

Adhesive small bowel obstruction (ASBO) is a common surgical emergency, causing high morbidity and even some mortality. The adhesions causing such bowel obstructions are typically the footprints of previous abdominal surgical procedures. The present paper presents a revised version of the Bologna guidelines to evidence-based diagnosis and treatment of ASBO. The working group has added paragraphs on prevention of ASBO and special patient groups. The guideline was written under the auspices of the World Society of Emergency Surgery by the ASBO working group. A systematic literature search was performed prior to the update of the guidelines to identify relevant new papers on epidemiology, diagnosis, and treatment of ASBO. Literature was critically appraised according to an evidence-based guideline development method. Final recommendations were approved by the workgroup, taking into account the level of evidence of the conclusion. Adhesion formation might be reduced by minimally invasive surgical techniques and the use of adhesion barriers. Non-operative treatment is effective in most patients with ASBO. Contraindications for non-operative treatment include peritonitis, strangulation, and ischemia. When the adhesive etiology of obstruction is unsure, or when contraindications for non-operative management might be present, CT is the diagnostic technique of choice. The principles of non-operative treatment are nil per os, naso-gastric, or long-tube decompression, and intravenous supplementation with fluids and electrolytes. When operative treatment is required, a laparoscopic approach may be beneficial for selected cases of simple ASBO.Younger patients have a higher lifetime risk for recurrent ASBO and might therefore benefit from application of adhesion barriers as both primary and secondary prevention. This guideline presents recommendations that can be used by surgeons who treat patients with ASBO. Scientific evidence for some aspects of ASBO management is scarce, in particular aspects relating to special patient groups. Results of a randomized trial of laparoscopic versus open surgery for ASBO are awaited.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 17 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 565 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 565 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 92 16%
Student > Postgraduate 56 10%
Other 51 9%
Researcher 47 8%
Student > Master 35 6%
Other 83 15%
Unknown 201 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 285 50%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 2%
Unspecified 9 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 <1%
Other 28 5%
Unknown 218 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 17 March 2024.
All research outputs
#2,587,055
of 26,017,215 outputs
Outputs from World Journal of Emergency Surgery
#86
of 616 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#50,906
of 345,596 outputs
Outputs of similar age from World Journal of Emergency Surgery
#2
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,017,215 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 616 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its peers.
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 345,596 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.