| Title |
A systematic analysis of controlled clinical trials using the NiTi CAR™ compression ring in colorectal anastomoses
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Techniques in Coloproctology, January 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10151-017-1583-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
R. Tabola, R. Cirocchi, A. Fingerhut, A. Arezzo, J. Randolph, V. Grassi, G. A. Binda, V. D’Andrea, I. Abraha, G. Popivanov, S. Di Saverio, A. Zbar |
| Abstract |
Anastomotic leak following colorectal surgery can be a devastating adverse event. The ideal stapling device should be capable of rapid creation of an anastomosis with serosal apposition without the persistence of a foreign body or a foreign body reaction which potentially contribute to early anastomotic dehiscence or late anastomotic stricture. A systematic review was performed examining available data on controlled randomized and non-randomized trials assessing the NiTi compression anastomosis ring-(NiTi CAR™) (NiTi Solutions, Netanyah Israel) in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) standards. A protocol for this meta-analysis has been registered on PROSPERO (CRD42016050934). The initial search yielded 45 potentially relevant articles. After screening titles and abstracts for relevance and assessment for eligibility, 39 of these articles were eventually excluded leaving 6 studies for analysis in the review. Regarding the primary outcome measure, the overall anastomotic leak rate was 2.2% (5/230) in the compression anastomosis group compared with 3% (10/335) in the conventional anastomosis group; this difference was not statistically significant (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.25-2.24; participants = 565; studies = 6; I (2) = 0%). There were no statistically significant differences between compression and conventional anastomoses in any of the secondary outcomes. This review was unable to demonstrate any statistically significant differences in favor of the compression anastomosis technique over conventional manual or stapled mechanical anastomoses. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Italy | 3 | 50% |
| Spain | 1 | 17% |
| Mexico | 1 | 17% |
| Unknown | 1 | 17% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 50% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 33% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 17% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 37 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 37 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 7 | 19% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 16% |
| Other | 4 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 6 | 16% |
| Unknown | 8 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 15 | 41% |
| Engineering | 2 | 5% |
| Sports and Recreations | 2 | 5% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 3% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 3 | 8% |
| Unknown | 13 | 35% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 31 January 2017.
All research outputs
#7,981,570
of 25,603,577 outputs
Outputs from Techniques in Coloproctology
#687
of 1,361 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#137,081
of 424,688 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Techniques in Coloproctology
#23
of 27 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,603,577 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,361 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.6. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% 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 424,688 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 27 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.