↓ Skip to main content

Recurrent Pilonidal Sinus: Lay Open or Flap Closure, Does It Differ?

Overview of attention for article published in International surgery, October 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (59th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
21 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
Recurrent Pilonidal Sinus: Lay Open or Flap Closure, Does It Differ?
Published in
International surgery, October 2013
DOI 10.9738/intsurg-d-13-00081.1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tayfun Yoldas, Can Karaca, Omer Unalp, Alper Uguz, Cemil Caliskan, Erhan Akgun, Mustafa Korkut

Abstract

Abstract Treatment options of pilonidal sinus, which has high recurrence rates, is still controversial. In this study, we aimed to analyze for possible factors affecting recurrence. Forty-one patients with recurrent pilonidal sinus were included in this study. Of them, 33 were male and 9 were female (mean age, 24.9 years; age range, 16-42). Factors (i.e., risk factors) were detected in 32 patients. Excision-secondary healing and lay open was performed on 30 of the patients admitted with recurrence. Excision and flap closure was applied on 11 patients. Our recurrence rate was 9.7%. The recurrence rate of our study is compatible with the literature. Comparative studies are needed to determine the appropriate method to decrease recurrence rate.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 21 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 21 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 3 14%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 14%
Student > Master 3 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 14%
Researcher 2 10%
Other 6 29%
Unknown 1 5%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 76%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 5%
Unknown 4 19%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 31 August 2015.
All research outputs
#6,745,952
of 12,531,853 outputs
Outputs from International surgery
#110
of 374 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#95,570
of 241,724 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International surgery
#15
of 40 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,531,853 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 374 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 1.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% 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 241,724 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 59% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 40 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 60% of its contemporaries.