↓ Skip to main content

Prophylactic mesh placement for the PREvention of paraSTOmal hernias: The PRESTO systematic review and meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (54th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (53rd percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source

Citations

dimensions_citation
45 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
54 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
Prophylactic mesh placement for the PREvention of paraSTOmal hernias: The PRESTO systematic review and meta-analysis
Published in
PLOS ONE, February 2017
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0171548
Pubmed ID
Authors

Frank Pianka, Pascal Probst, Anne-Valerie Keller, Daniel Saure, Kathrin Grummich, Markus W. Büchler, Markus K. Diener

Abstract

Parastomal hernia (PH) is the most common complication after ostomy formation. Prophylactic mesh placement may be effective in reducing the rate of PH at the stoma site. The aims of this systematic review were to summarize the evidence with regard to the safety and effectiveness in comparison with the standard procedure without mesh placement and to identify important risk constellations. A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane library with no language or date restrictions. Randomized (RCTs) and non-randomized controlled trials (nRCTs) were included. The main outcomes of interest were PH (primary outcome) rate and stoma-related complications (secondary outcomes) such as stenosis or fistula. Statistical analysis included meta-analyses of pooled data and subgroup analyses. Eleven trials (eight RCTs; three nRCTs) with a total of 755 patients were included. PH rate varied from 0% to 59% in the intervention and from 20% to 94% in the control group. RCTs showed a significant reduction of PH rate in the mesh group (OR 0.24; 95% CI 0.10 to 0.58, p = 0.034), whereas included nRCTs did not. No significant differences were observed in postoperative complication rates. Subgroup analyses showed superiority of non-absorbable meshes and sublay mesh positioning in open surgery. Prophylactic mesh placement is safe and reduces PH rate. A recommendation for prophylactic non-absorbable meshes in a sublay position can be made for patients undergoing open colorectal operations with end-ostomies. Further research endeavors should focus on patient-oriented outcomes, not only PH rate, with respect to tailored treatment in specific patient populations.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 54 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 54 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 19%
Student > Master 8 15%
Other 7 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 13%
Student > Postgraduate 4 7%
Other 8 15%
Unknown 10 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 29 54%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 4%
Social Sciences 2 4%
Arts and Humanities 1 2%
Other 1 2%
Unknown 17 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 19 June 2019.
All research outputs
#7,518,189
of 22,953,506 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#89,823
of 195,654 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#144,426
of 420,399 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#1,850
of 4,270 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,953,506 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 195,654 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.1. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% 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 420,399 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 54% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4,270 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its contemporaries.