↓ Skip to main content

European Hernia Society guidelines on the treatment of inguinal hernia in adult patients

Overview of attention for article published in Hernia, July 2009
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#49 of 1,313)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
18 X users
patent
1 patent
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
20 Wikipedia pages

Readers on

mendeley
840 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
European Hernia Society guidelines on the treatment of inguinal hernia in adult patients
Published in
Hernia, July 2009
DOI 10.1007/s10029-009-0529-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

M. P. Simons, T. Aufenacker, M. Bay-Nielsen, J. L. Bouillot, G. Campanelli, J. Conze, D. de Lange, R. Fortelny, T. Heikkinen, A. Kingsnorth, J. Kukleta, S. Morales-Conde, P. Nordin, V. Schumpelick, S. Smedberg, M. Smietanski, G. Weber, M. Miserez

Abstract

The European Hernia Society (EHS) is proud to present the EHS Guidelines for the Treatment of Inguinal Hernia in Adult Patients. The Guidelines contain recommendations for the treatment of inguinal hernia from diagnosis till aftercare. They have been developed by a Working Group consisting of expert surgeons with representatives of 14 country members of the EHS. They are evidence-based and, when necessary, a consensus was reached among all members. The Guidelines have been reviewed by a Steering Committee. Before finalisation, feedback from different national hernia societies was obtained. The Appraisal of Guidelines for REsearch and Evaluation (AGREE) instrument was used by the Cochrane Association to validate the Guidelines. The Guidelines can be used to adjust local protocols, for training purposes and quality control. They will be revised in 2012 in order to keep them updated. In between revisions, it is the intention of the Working Group to provide every year, during the EHS annual congress, a short update of new high-level evidence (randomised controlled trials [RCTs] and meta-analyses). Developing guidelines leads to questions that remain to be answered by specific research. Therefore, we provide recommendations for further research that can be performed to raise the level of evidence concerning certain aspects of inguinal hernia treatment. In addition, a short summary, specifically for the general practitioner, is given. In order to increase the practical use of the Guidelines by consultants and residents, more details on the most important surgical techniques, local infiltration anaesthesia and a patient information sheet is provided. The most important challenge now will be the implementation of the Guidelines in daily surgical practice. This remains an important task for the EHS. The establishment of an EHS school for teaching inguinal hernia repair surgical techniques, including tips and tricks from experts to overcome the learning curve (especially in endoscopic repair), will be the next step. Working together on this project was a great learning experience, and it was worthwhile and fun. Cultural differences between members were easily overcome by educating each other, respecting different views and always coming back to the principles of evidence-based medicine. The members of the Working Group would like to thank the EHS board for their support and especially Ethicon for sponsoring the many meetings that were needed to finalise such an ambitious project.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 18 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 840 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 6 <1%
Brazil 3 <1%
Switzerland 2 <1%
Colombia 2 <1%
Italy 2 <1%
Ecuador 2 <1%
Austria 2 <1%
Spain 2 <1%
Denmark 2 <1%
Other 16 2%
Unknown 801 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 109 13%
Student > Bachelor 107 13%
Researcher 99 12%
Other 87 10%
Student > Master 84 10%
Other 191 23%
Unknown 163 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 542 65%
Engineering 17 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 16 2%
Nursing and Health Professions 15 2%
Arts and Humanities 10 1%
Other 57 7%
Unknown 183 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. 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 25 December 2023.
All research outputs
#1,966,626
of 25,837,817 outputs
Outputs from Hernia
#49
of 1,313 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6,379
of 124,836 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Hernia
#2
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,837,817 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,313 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 5.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 124,836 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 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.