↓ Skip to main content

Bedside dressing changes for open abdomen in the intensive care unit is safe and time and staff efficient

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, May 2016
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 (88th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

27 tweeters
1 Facebook page


13 Dimensions

Readers on

43 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.
Bedside dressing changes for open abdomen in the intensive care unit is safe and time and staff efficient
Published in
Critical Care, May 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13054-016-1337-y
Pubmed ID

Arne Seternes, Sigurd Fasting, Pål Klepstad, Skule Mo, Torbjørn Dahl, Martin Björck, Arne Wibe


Patients with an open abdomen (OA) treated with temporary abdominal closure (TAC) need multiple surgical procedures throughout the hospital stay with repeated changes of the vacuum-assisted closure device (VAC changes). The aim of this study was to examine if using the intensive care unit (ICU) for dressing changes in OA patients was safe regarding bloodstream infections (BSI) and survival. Secondary aims were to evaluate saved time, personnel, and costs. All patients treated with OA in the ICU from October 2006 to June 2014 were included. Data were retrospectively obtained from registered procedure codes, clinical and administrative patients' records and the OR, ICU, anesthesia and microbiology databases. Outcomes were 30-, 60- and 90-day survival, BSI, time used and saved personnel costs. A total of 113 patients underwent 960 surgical procedures including 443 VAC changes as a single procedure, of which 165 (37 %) were performed in the ICU. Nine patients died before the first scheduled dressing change and six patients were closed at the first scheduled surgery after established OA, leaving 98 patients for further analysis. The mean duration for the surgical team performing a VAC change in the ICU was 63.4 (60.4-66.4) minutes and in the OR 98.2 (94.6-101.8) minutes (p < 0.001). The mean duration for the anesthesia team in the OR was 115.5 minutes, while this team was not used in the ICU. Personnel costs were reduced by €682 per procedure when using the ICU. Forty-two patients had all the VAC changes done in the OR (VAC-OR), 22 in the ICU (VAC-ICU) and 34 in both OR and ICU (VAC-OR/ICU). BSI was diagnosed in eight (19 %) of the VAC-OR patients, seven (32 %) of the VAC-ICU and eight (24 %) of the VAC-OR/ICU (p = 0.509). Thirty-five patients (83 %) survived 30 days in the VAC-OR group, 17 in the VAC-ICU group (77 %) and 28 (82 %) in the VAC-OR/ICU group (p = 0.844). VAC change for OA in the ICU saved time for the OR team and the anesthesia team compared to using the OR, and it reduced personnel costs. Importantly, the use of ICU for OA dressing change seemed to be as safe as using the OR.

Twitter Demographics

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 27 tweeters 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 43 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 1 2%
Unknown 42 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 7 16%
Other 5 12%
Researcher 4 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 7%
Unspecified 3 7%
Other 9 21%
Unknown 12 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 40%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 16%
Unspecified 3 7%
Psychology 2 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 2%
Other 1 2%
Unknown 12 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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 18 September 2016.
All research outputs
of 23,978,545 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
of 6,283 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 343,056 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
of 71 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,978,545 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,283 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% 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 343,056 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 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 71 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.