↓ Skip to main content

Splenic artery embolization: technically feasible but not necessarily advantageous

Overview of attention for article published in World Journal of Emergency Surgery, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
45 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
Splenic artery embolization: technically feasible but not necessarily advantageous
Published in
World Journal of Emergency Surgery, September 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13017-016-0100-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

F. Van der Cruyssen, A. Manzelli

Abstract

The spleen is the second most commonly injured organ in cases of abdominal trauma. Management of splenic injury depends on the clinical status of the patient and can include nonoperative management (NOM), splenic artery embolization (SAE), surgery (operative splenic salvage or splenectomy), or a combination of these treatments. In nonoperatively managed cases, SAE is sometimes used to control haemorrhage. However, the indications for SAE have not been clearly defined and, in some cases, the potential complications of the procedure may outweigh its benefits. Through review of the literature we address the question of when SAE is indicated in combination with NOM of splenic injury, and whether SAE may delay needed surgical treatment in some cases. This systematic review highlighted the use of imperfect and inconsistent scoring systems in the diagnosis of splenic injury, the lack of consensus regarding indications for SAE, and the potential for severe morbidities associated with this procedure. Based on current literature and evidence we provide a new, non-verified, decision algorithm. NOM+ SAE involves potential risks and operative management may be preferable to SAE for certain patients. To clarify current literature, we propose a new algorithm for blunt abdominal trauma that should be validated prospectively. New evidence-based protocols should be developed to guide diagnosis and management of patients with splenic trauma.

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 45 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 45 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 7 16%
Researcher 6 13%
Student > Bachelor 5 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 9%
Lecturer 3 7%
Other 9 20%
Unknown 11 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 47%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 4%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 2%
Psychology 1 2%
Other 3 7%
Unknown 15 33%
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 21 September 2016.
All research outputs
#14,861,191
of 22,888,307 outputs
Outputs from World Journal of Emergency Surgery
#291
of 547 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#193,825
of 322,146 outputs
Outputs of similar age from World Journal of Emergency Surgery
#6
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,888,307 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 547 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.3. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% 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 322,146 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.