↓ Skip to main content

Wound drainage for lower limb arterial surgery

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (85th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (56th percentile)

Mentioned by

15 tweeters
2 Facebook pages
1 Wikipedia page


3 Dimensions

Readers on

89 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.
Wound drainage for lower limb arterial surgery
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd011111.pub2
Pubmed ID

Donagh Healy, Mary Clarke-Moloney, Ailish Hannigan, Stewart Walsh


Drains are often used in leg wounds after vascular surgery procedures despite uncertainty regarding their benefits. Drains are placed with the aim of reducing the incidence and size of blood or fluid collections. Conversely, drains may predispose patients to infection and may prolong hospitalisation. Surgeons need robust data regarding the effects of drains on complications following lower limb arterial surgery. To determine whether routine placement of wound drains results in fewer complications following lower limb arterial surgery than no drains. In June 2016 we searched: the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; the Cochrane Library); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid EMBASE and EBSCO CINAHL. We also searched clinical trial registries for ongoing studies.There were no restrictions with respect to language, date of publication or study setting. We considered randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the use of any type of drain in lower limb arterial surgery. Two authors independently determined study eligibility, extracted data and performed an assessment of bias. An effort was made to contact authors for missing data. The methods and results of each eligible study were summarised and we planned to pool data in meta-analyses when it was considered appropriate, based upon clinical and statistical homogeneity. We identified three eligible trials involving a total of 222 participants with 333 groin wounds. Suction drainage was compared with no drainage in all studies. Two studies were parallel-group, randomized controlled trials, and one was a split-body, randomized controlled trial. Trial settings were not clearly described. Patients undergoing bypass and endarterectomy procedures were included, but none of the studies provided details on the severity of the underlying arterial disease.We deemed all of the studies to be at a high risk of bias in three or more domains of the 'Risk of bias' assessment and overall the evidence was of very low quality. Two out of three studies had unit of analysis errors (with multiple wounds within patients analysed as independent) and it was not possible to judge the appropriateness of the analysis of the third. Meta-analysis was not appropriate, firstly because of clinical heterogeneity, and secondly because we were not able to adjust for the analysis errors in the individual trials. One trial yielded data on surgical site infections (SSI; the primary outcome of the review): there was no clear difference between drained and non-drained wounds for SSI (risk ratio 1.33; 95% confidence interval 0.30 to 5.94; 50 participants with bilateral groin wounds; very low quality evidence). It was not possible to evaluate any other outcomes from this trial. The results from the other two studies are unreliable because of analysis errors and reporting omissions. The data upon which to base practice in this area are limited and prone to biases. Complete uncertainty remains regarding the potential benefits and harms associated with the use of wound drains in lower limb arterial surgery due to the small number of completed studies and weaknesses in their design and conduct. Higher quality evidence is needed to inform clinical decision making. To our knowledge, no trials on this topic are currently active.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 89 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 89 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 15 17%
Student > Bachelor 10 11%
Researcher 10 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 8%
Other 15 17%
Unknown 23 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 26 29%
Nursing and Health Professions 15 17%
Social Sciences 4 4%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 3 3%
Sports and Recreations 2 2%
Other 9 10%
Unknown 30 34%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 10 July 2020.
All research outputs
of 16,562,219 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 11,528 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 293,290 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 158 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,562,219 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,528 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 24.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% 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 293,290 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 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 158 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% of its contemporaries.