↓ Skip to main content

Use of plastic adhesive drapes during surgery for preventing surgical site infection

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2015
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 (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (86th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
79 tweeters
facebook
4 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
70 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
213 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
Use of plastic adhesive drapes during surgery for preventing surgical site infection
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd006353.pub4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Joan Webster, Abdullah Alghamdi

Abstract

Surgical site infection has been estimated to occur in about 15% of clean surgery and 30% of contaminated surgery cases. Using plastic adhesive drapes to protect the wound from organisms that may be present on the surrounding skin during surgery is one strategy used to prevent surgical site infection. Results from non-randomised studies have produced conflicting results about the efficacy of this approach. A systematic review was required to guide clinical practice. To assess the effect of adhesive drapes used during surgery on surgical site infection, cost, mortality and morbidity. For this fourth update we searched the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (searched 4th March 2015); the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2015, Issue 2); Ovid MEDLINE (2012 to 3rd March 2015); Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, 2012 to 3rd March 2015); Ovid EMBASE (2012 to 3rd March 2015); and EBSCO CINAHL (2012 to 4th March 2015). Randomised controlled trials comparing any plastic adhesive drape with no plastic adhesive drape, used alone or in combination with woven (material) drapes or disposable (paper) drapes, in patients undergoing any type of surgery. Ring drapes were excluded. Two review authors independently selected and assessed studies for trial quality and both independently extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information. We identified no new studies for this fourth update. The review includes five studies involving 3082 participants comparing plastic adhesive drapes with no drapes and two studies involving 1113 participants comparing iodine-impregnated adhesive drapes with no drapes. A significantly higher proportion of patients in the adhesive drape group developed a surgical site infection when compared with no drapes (risk ratio (RR) 1.23, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.02 to 1.48, P = 0.03). Iodine-impregnated adhesive drapes had no effect on the surgical site infection rate (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.06 to 1.66, P = 0.89). Length of hospital stay was similar in the adhesive drape and non-adhesive drape groups. There was no evidence from the seven trials that plastic adhesive drapes reduce surgical site infection rates, and some evidence that they increase infection rates. Further trials may be justified, using blinded outcome assessment to examine the effect of adhesive drapes on surgical site infection, based on different wound classifications.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 79 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 213 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 3 1%
Brazil 2 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Norway 1 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 201 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 33 15%
Student > Master 30 14%
Student > Bachelor 28 13%
Other 27 13%
Student > Postgraduate 25 12%
Other 70 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 119 56%
Unspecified 34 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 19 9%
Engineering 8 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 4%
Other 25 12%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 48. 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 03 July 2019.
All research outputs
#367,863
of 13,600,790 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,034
of 10,663 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#8,242
of 228,329 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#31
of 231 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,600,790 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,663 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 228,329 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 231 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.