↓ Skip to main content

Towards standardization of training and practice of reconstructive microsurgery: an evidence-based recommendation for anastomosis thrombosis prophylaxis

Overview of attention for article published in European Journal of Plastic Surgery, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
44 Mendeley
Title
Towards standardization of training and practice of reconstructive microsurgery: an evidence-based recommendation for anastomosis thrombosis prophylaxis
Published in
European Journal of Plastic Surgery, April 2018
DOI 10.1007/s00238-018-1417-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marie C. Kearns, Jill Baker, Simon Myers, Ali Ghanem

Abstract

Despite significant improvements in survival rates, free flap failures still occur even in experienced hands and are most commonly due to arterial or venous thrombosis. In the absence of an evidence-based guideline on the prevention of thrombosis, we reviewed the literature to assess the evidence base for commonly used interventions aimed at its prevention. A comprehensive literature search was performed using the following keywords "free flap" and microsurgery with "pre-operative screening," "prevention of thrombosis," "ketorolac," "heparin," "low molecular weight heparin," "aspirin," "dextran," and "statins." Thirteen clinical studies were included in this review. No high-level evidence is available to support any perioperative or postoperative interventions aimed at reducing the risk of flap thrombosis. Higher level studies are needed to investigate the clinical use of antithrombotic medications in microsurgery; however, given the small failure rates in modern practice, these will need to be large multicenter trials in order to reach sufficient power.Level of Evidence: Level III, risk/prognostic study.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users 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 44 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 44 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 4 9%
Student > Master 4 9%
Student > Bachelor 4 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 9%
Other 10 23%
Unknown 14 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 39%
Unspecified 4 9%
Chemistry 2 5%
Mathematics 1 2%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 2%
Other 5 11%
Unknown 14 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 14 May 2018.
All research outputs
#14,328,099
of 23,047,237 outputs
Outputs from European Journal of Plastic Surgery
#212
of 480 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#185,419
of 329,293 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Journal of Plastic Surgery
#6
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,047,237 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 480 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% 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 329,293 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.