↓ Skip to main content

Abdominal wall hernia and pregnancy: a systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in Hernia, April 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
59 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
Abdominal wall hernia and pregnancy: a systematic review
Published in
Hernia, April 2015
DOI 10.1007/s10029-015-1373-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

K. K. Jensen, N. A. Henriksen, L. N. Jorgensen

Abstract

There is no consensus as to the treatment strategy for abdominal wall hernias in fertile women. This study was undertaken to review the current literature on treatment of abdominal wall hernias in fertile women before or during pregnancy. A literature search was undertaken in PubMed and Embase in combination with a cross-reference search of eligible papers. We included 31 papers of which 23 were case reports. In fertile women undergoing sutured or mesh repair, pain was described in a few patients during the last trimester of a subsequent pregnancy. Emergency surgery of incarcerated hernias in pregnant women, as well as combined hernia repair and cesarean section appears as safe procedures. No major complications were reported following hernia repair before or during pregnancy. The combined procedure of elective cesarean section and abdominal wall hernia repair was reported in 102 patients without major complications. The literature on abdominal wall hernia and pregnancy is sparse. Abdominal wall hernia repair with suture or mesh may cause pain in the last trimester of a subsequent pregnancy. Hernia repair in conjunction with cesarean section appear as the optimal treatment of a pregnant patient with a symptomatic abdominal wall hernia.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 59 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 59 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 11 19%
Student > Bachelor 9 15%
Other 5 8%
Student > Postgraduate 4 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 7%
Other 8 14%
Unknown 18 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 27 46%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 2%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 2%
Other 2 3%
Unknown 24 41%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 30 April 2015.
All research outputs
#14,807,732
of 22,799,071 outputs
Outputs from Hernia
#610
of 1,106 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#148,674
of 264,708 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Hernia
#3
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,799,071 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,106 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.3. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% 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 264,708 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 32 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.