↓ Skip to main content

Subcutaneous closure versus no subcutaneous closure after non‐caesarean surgical procedures

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 X users
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
27 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
140 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
Subcutaneous closure versus no subcutaneous closure after non‐caesarean surgical procedures
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2014
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd010425.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kurinchi Selvan Gurusamy, Clare D Toon, Brian R Davidson

Abstract

Most surgical procedures involve a cut in the skin that allows the surgeon to gain access to the surgical site. Most surgical wounds are closed fully at the end of the procedure, and this review focuses on these. The human body has multiple layers of tissues, and the skin is the outermost of these layers. The loose connective tissue just beneath the skin is called subcutaneous tissue, and this generally contains fat. There is uncertainty about closure of subcutaneous tissue after surgery: some surgeons advocate closure of subcutaneous tissue, as they consider this closes dead space and leads to a decrease in wound complications; others consider closure of subcutaneous tissue to be an unnecessary step that increases operating time and involves the use of additional suture material without offering any benefit.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 140 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Ireland 1 <1%
Unknown 138 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 15 11%
Student > Master 14 10%
Other 13 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 13 9%
Researcher 13 9%
Other 33 24%
Unknown 39 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 61 44%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 9%
Psychology 6 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 4%
Computer Science 3 2%
Other 7 5%
Unknown 46 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 06 July 2018.
All research outputs
#6,299,102
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#7,611
of 11,483 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#68,052
of 321,172 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#162
of 230 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,483 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 39.9. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% 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 321,172 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 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 230 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.