↓ Skip to main content

Dressings for the prevention of surgical site infection

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (89th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
94 tweeters
facebook
5 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Readers on

mendeley
43 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
Dressings for the prevention of surgical site infection
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd003091.pub4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jo C Dumville, Trish A Gray, Catherine J Walter, Catherine A Sharp, Tamara Page, Rhiannon Macefield, Natalie Blencowe, Thomas KG Milne, Barnaby C Reeves, Jane Blazeby, Dumville, Jo C, Gray, Trish A, Walter, Catherine J, Sharp, Catherine A, Page, Tamara, Macefield, Rhiannon, Blencowe, Natalie, Milne, Thomas Kg, Reeves, Barnaby C, Blazeby, Jane, Milne, Thomas KG

Abstract

Surgical wounds (incisions) heal by primary intention when the wound edges are brought together and secured, often with sutures, staples, or clips. Wound dressings applied after wound closure may provide physical support, protection and absorb exudate. There are many different types of wound dressings available and wounds can also be left uncovered (exposed). Surgical site infection (SSI) is a common complication of wounds and this may be associated with using (or not using) dressings, or different types of dressing. To assess the effects of wound dressings compared with no wound dressings, and the effects of alternative wound dressings, in preventing SSIs in surgical wounds healing by primary intention. We searched the following databases: the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register (searched 19 September 2016); the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; the Cochrane Library 2016, Issue 8); Ovid MEDLINE (including In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, MEDLINE Daily and Epub Ahead of Print; 1946 to 19 September 2016); Ovid Embase (1974 to 19 September 2016); EBSCO CINAHL Plus (1937 to 19 September 2016).There were no restrictions based on language, date of publication or study setting. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing wound dressings with wound exposure (no dressing) or alternative wound dressings for the postoperative management of surgical wounds healing by primary intention. Two review authors performed study selection, 'Risk of bias' assessment and data extraction independently. We included 29 trials (5718 participants). All studies except one were at an unclear or high risk of bias. Studies were small, reported low numbers of SSI events and were often not clearly reported. There were 16 trials that included people with wounds resulting from surgical procedures with a 'clean' classification, five trials that included people undergoing what was considered 'clean/contaminated' surgery, with the remaining studies including people undergoing a variety of surgical procedures with different contamination classifications. Four trials compared wound dressings with no wound dressing (wound exposure); the remaining 25 studies compared alternative dressing types, with the majority comparing a basic wound contact dressing with film dressings, silver dressings or hydrocolloid dressings. The review contains 11 comparisons in total. SSIIt is uncertain whether wound exposure or any dressing reduces or increases the risk of SSI compared with alternative options investigated: we assessed the certainty of evidence as very low for most comparisons (and low for others), with downgrading (according to GRADE criteria) largely due to risk of bias and imprecision. We summarise the results of comparisons with meta-analysed data below:- film dressings compared with basic wound contact dressings following clean surgery (RR 1.34, 95% CI 0.70 to 2.55), very low certainty evidence downgraded once for risk of bias and twice for imprecision.- hydrocolloid dressings compared with basic wound contact dressings following clean surgery (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.30 to 2.78), very low certainty evidence downgraded once for risk of bias and twice for imprecision.- hydrocolloid dressings compared with basic wound contact dressings following potentially contaminated surgery (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.51), very low certainty evidence downgraded twice for risk of bias and twice for imprecision.- silver-containing dressings compared with basic wound contact dressings following clean surgery (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.47 to 2.62), very low certainty evidence downgraded once for risk of bias and twice for imprecision.- silver-containing dressings compared with basic wound contact dressings following potentially contaminated surgery (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.37), very low certainty evidence downgraded twice for risk of bias and twice for imprecision. Secondary outcomesThere was limited and low or very low certainty evidence on secondary outcomes such as scarring, acceptability of dressing and ease of removal, and uncertainty whether wound dressings influenced these outcomes. It is uncertain whether covering surgical wounds healing by primary intention with wound dressings reduces the risk of SSI, or whether any particular wound dressing is more effective than others in reducing the risk of SSI, improving scarring, reducing pain, improving acceptability to patients, or is easier to remove. Most studies in this review were small and at a high or unclear risk of bias. Based on the current evidence, decision makers may wish to base decisions about how to dress a wound following surgery on dressing costs as well as patient preference.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 94 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 43 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 43 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 11 26%
Student > Bachelor 8 19%
Unspecified 7 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 9%
Other 9 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 19 44%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 19%
Unspecified 7 16%
Engineering 3 7%
Psychology 2 5%
Other 4 9%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 71. 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 07 May 2018.
All research outputs
#171,415
of 11,390,600 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#504
of 9,086 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#9,506
of 318,900 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#11
of 104 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 11,390,600 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,086 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.5. 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 318,900 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 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 104 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.