↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Techniques and materials for skin closure in caesarean section

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
54 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
186 Mendeley
Title
Techniques and materials for skin closure in caesarean section
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2012
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd003577.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

A Dhanya Mackeen, Vincenzo Berghella, Mie‐Louise Larsen

Abstract

Caesarean section is a common operation with no agreed upon standard regarding certain operative techniques or materials to use. With regard to skin closure, the skin incision can be re-approximated by a subcuticular suture immediately below the skin layer, by an interrupted suture, or by staples. A great variety of materials and techniques are used for skin closure after caesarean section and there is a need to identify which provide the best outcomes for women. To compare the effects of skin closure techniques and materials on maternal and operative outcomes after caesarean section. We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (10 January 2012). All randomized trials comparing different skin closure materials in caesareans were selected. Two review authors independently abstracted the data. We identified 19 trials and included 11, but only eight trials contributed data. Three trials were not randomized controlled trials; two were ongoing; one study was terminated and the results were not available for review; one is awaiting classification; and one did not compare skin closure materials, but rather suture to suture and drain placement. The two methods of skin closure for caesarean that have been most often compared are non-absorbable staples and absorbable subcutaneous sutures. Compared with absorbable subcutaneous sutures, non-absorbable staples are associated with similar incidences of wound infection. Other important secondary outcomes, such as wound complications, were also similar between the groups in women with Pfannenstiel incisions. However, it is important to note, that for both of these outcomes (wound infection and wound complication), staples may have a differential effect depending on the type of skin incision, i.e., Pfannenstiel or vertical. Compared with absorbable subcutaneous sutures, non-absorbable staples are associated with an increased risk of skin separation, and therefore, reclosure. However, skin separation was variably defined across trials, and most staples were removed before four days postpartum. There is currently no conclusive evidence about how the skin should be closed after caesarean section. Staples are associated with similar outcomes in terms of wound infection, pain and cosmesis compared with sutures, and these two are the most commonly studied methods for skin closure after caesarean section. If staples are removed on day three, there is an increased incidence of skin separation and the need for reclosure compared with absorbable sutures.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 186 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Rwanda 1 <1%
Austria 1 <1%
Unknown 184 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 23 12%
Researcher 19 10%
Unspecified 16 9%
Student > Postgraduate 16 9%
Student > Bachelor 16 9%
Other 48 26%
Unknown 48 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 89 48%
Unspecified 16 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 4%
Psychology 7 4%
Social Sciences 3 2%
Other 10 5%
Unknown 53 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 23 July 2019.
All research outputs
#7,436,279
of 25,604,262 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#8,965
of 13,148 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#53,334
of 192,996 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#169
of 245 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,604,262 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,148 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.7. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% 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 192,996 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 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 245 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.