| Title |
Outcomes of endoscopic pilonidal sinus treatment (EPSiT): a systematic review
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Techniques in Coloproctology, May 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10151-018-1803-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
T. Tien, R. Athem, T. Arulampalam |
| Abstract |
Pilonidal sinus is a common disease of the natal cleft, which can lead to complications including infection and abscess formation. Various operative management options are available, but the ideal technique is still debatable. More recently minimally invasive approaches have been described. Our aim was to review the current literature on endoscopic pilonidal sinus treatment (EPSiT) and its outcomes. A systematic literature review was conducted and reported in accordance to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. A search of EMBASE, MEDLINE and Cochrane Library was conducted in November 2017. Full-text studies on the use of endoscopy for the treatment of pilonidal sinus were included in the review. Initial search results returned 52 articles. Eight studies (eight case series and one randomised control trial) were included in the final qualitative synthesis. These studies demonstrated that EPSiT has good complete healing rates and low recurrence rates. There was also a high level of patient satisfaction and little time taken off work. Two studies reported modifications to the original technique. The main limitation was the lack of comparative studies. Initial studies on EPSiT have shown promising results. However, there is a need for a standardised technique and more comparative studies to validate this novel procedure. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 25 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 | 12% |
| Spain | 3 | 12% |
| Turkey | 2 | 8% |
| India | 1 | 4% |
| Chile | 1 | 4% |
| Libya | 1 | 4% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 4% |
| Yemen | 1 | 4% |
| Greece | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 10 | 40% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 13 | 52% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 5 | 20% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 4 | 16% |
| Scientists | 3 | 12% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 64 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 64 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 8 | 13% |
| Researcher | 8 | 13% |
| Other | 7 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 11% |
| Other | 8 | 13% |
| Unknown | 19 | 30% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 30 | 47% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 4 | 6% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 3% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 2% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 25 | 39% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 22. 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 06 May 2021.
All research outputs
#1,654,118
of 24,615,420 outputs
Outputs from Techniques in Coloproctology
#136
of 1,333 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#35,452
of 336,399 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Techniques in Coloproctology
#5
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,615,420 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,333 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 336,399 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 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 25 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.