↓ 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
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (87th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (55th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
11 tweeters
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
107 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.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 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 107 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 105 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 13 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 13 12%
Student > Bachelor 12 11%
Researcher 12 11%
Other 11 10%
Other 27 25%
Unknown 19 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 56 52%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 9%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 5%
Social Sciences 3 3%
Psychology 3 3%
Other 6 6%
Unknown 24 22%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 11 July 2020.
All research outputs
#2,038,817
of 16,568,277 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,770
of 11,533 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#31,760
of 259,120 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#81
of 183 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,568,277 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,533 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 58% 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 259,120 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 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 183 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 55% of its contemporaries.