| Title |
Wound protectors in reducing surgical site infections in lower gastrointestinal surgery: an updated meta-analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Surgical Endoscopy, December 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00464-017-6012-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Lisa Zhang, Basheer Elsolh, Sunil V. Patel |
| Abstract |
Surgical site infection (SSI) is a common complication in gastrointestinal surgery. Wound protection devices are being increasingly used in the attempt to reduce infection rates. We performed a meta-analysis to determine if wound protectors reduce the incidence of SSIs in lower gastrointestinal surgery. MEDLINE and EMBASE databases were searched between 1946 and 2016. Randomized controlled trials comparing wound protector versus no wound protector in lower gastrointestinal surgery were included. Our primary outcome was surgical site infection. Subgroup analysis was conducted comparing single-ring versus dual-ring wound protectors. Twelve RCTs with 3029 participants were included. There was a significant decrease in the odds of developing SSI in the wound protector group (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.45-0.90, P < 0.01, I 2 = 55%). There was evidence of a subgroup effect (P = 0.01) with dual-ring wound protectors associated with significantly lower incidence of SSIs (OR 0.31, 95% CI 0.18-0.52, P < 0.0001, I 2 = 12%), which was not appreciated in the single-ring group (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.67-1.04, P = 0.11, I 2 = 0%). Wound protector use is associated with decreased odds of developing SSI in patients undergoing lower gastrointestinal surgery. There was a subgroup effect when comparing dual-ring to single-ring devices. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 49 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 12 | 24% |
| Canada | 7 | 14% |
| United States | 5 | 10% |
| United Kingdom | 5 | 10% |
| Argentina | 2 | 4% |
| India | 1 | 2% |
| United Arab Emirates | 1 | 2% |
| South Africa | 1 | 2% |
| Mexico | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 13 | 27% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 19 | 39% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 16 | 33% |
| Scientists | 9 | 18% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 4 | 8% |
| Unknown | 1 | 2% |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 43 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 6 | 14% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 6 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 7% |
| Researcher | 3 | 7% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 7 | 16% |
| Unknown | 16 | 37% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 17 | 40% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 7% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 5% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 1 | 2% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 19 | 44% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 38. 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 29 July 2020.
All research outputs
#1,030,498
of 24,903,209 outputs
Outputs from Surgical Endoscopy
#62
of 6,691 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#23,990
of 453,630 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Surgical Endoscopy
#1
of 133 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,903,209 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,691 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 453,630 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 133 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.