| Title |
Systematic Review and Meta‐analysis of the Open Abdomen and Temporary Abdominal Closure Techniques in Non‐trauma Patients
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
World Journal of Surgery, December 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00268-014-2883-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
J. J. Atema, S. L. Gans, M. A. Boermeester |
| Abstract |
Several challenging clinical situations in patients with peritonitis can result in an open abdomen (OA) and subsequent temporary abdominal closure (TAC). Indications and treatment choices differ among surgeons. The risk of fistula development and the possibility to achieve delayed fascial closure differ between techniques. The aim of this study was to review the literature on the OA and TAC in peritonitis patients, to analyze indications and to assess delayed fascial closure, enteroatmospheric fistula and mortality rate, overall and per TAC technique. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 2 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 33% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 33% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 197 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Russia | 1 | <1% |
| Italy | 1 | <1% |
| Germany | 1 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 193 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Postgraduate | 29 | 15% |
| Researcher | 25 | 13% |
| Other | 23 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 19 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 16 | 8% |
| Other | 46 | 23% |
| Unknown | 39 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 130 | 66% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 2% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 2% |
| Engineering | 3 | 2% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 1% |
| Other | 5 | 3% |
| Unknown | 49 | 25% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 24 March 2021.
All research outputs
#6,587,541
of 25,837,817 outputs
Outputs from World Journal of Surgery
#1,093
of 4,697 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#81,414
of 372,601 outputs
Outputs of similar age from World Journal of Surgery
#13
of 73 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,837,817 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,697 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% 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 372,601 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 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 73 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.