↓ Skip to main content

Abdominal drainage to prevent intra-peritoneal abscess after open appendectomy for complicated appendicitis

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (63rd percentile)

Mentioned by

wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Readers on

mendeley
80 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 drainage to prevent intra-peritoneal abscess after open appendectomy for complicated appendicitis
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.CD010168.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Cheng, Yao, Zhou, Shiyi, Zhou, Rongxing, Lu, Jiong, Wu, Sijia, Xiong, Xianze, Ye, Hui, Lin, Yixin, Wu, Taixiang, Cheng, Nansheng

Abstract

Appendectomy, the surgical removal of the appendix, is performed primarily for acute appendicitis. Patients who undergo appendectomy for complicated appendicitis, defined as gangrenous or perforated appendicitis, are more likely to suffer from postoperative complications. The routine use of abdominal drainage to reduce postoperative complications after appendectomy for complicated appendicitis is controversial. To assess the safety and efficacy of abdominal drainage to prevent intra-peritoneal abscess after open appendectomy for complicated appendicitis. We searched The Cochrane Library (Issue 1, 2014), MEDLINE (1950 to February 2014), EMBASE (1974 to February 2014), Science Citation Index Expanded (1900 to February 2014), and Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM) (1978 to February 2014). We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared abdominal drainage and no drainage in patients undergoing emergency open appendectomy for complicated appendicitis. Two review authors identified the trials for inclusion, collected the data, and assessed the risk of bias independently. We performed the meta-analyses using Review Manager 5. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes (or a Peto odds ratio for very rare outcomes), and the mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We included five trials involving 453 patients with complicated appendicitis who were randomised to the drainage group (n = 228) and the no drainage group (n = 225) after emergency open appendectomies. All of the trials were at a high risk of bias. There were no significant differences between the two groups in the rates of intra-peritoneal abscess or wound infection. The hospital stay was longer in the drainage group than in the no drainage group (MD 2.04 days; 95% CI 1.46 to 2.62) (34.4% increase of an 'average' hospital stay). The quality of the current evidence is very low. It is not clear whether routine abdominal drainage has any effect on the prevention of intra-peritoneal abscess after open appendectomy for complicated appendicitis. Abdominal drainage after an emergency open appendectomy may be associated with delayed hospital discharge for patients with complicated appendicitis.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 80 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 1%
Unknown 79 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 13%
Student > Postgraduate 9 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 11%
Student > Bachelor 9 11%
Other 8 10%
Other 27 34%
Unknown 8 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 57 71%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 1%
Computer Science 1 1%
Other 1 1%
Unknown 13 16%

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 15 January 2020.
All research outputs
#4,833,356
of 15,432,515 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#7,619
of 11,179 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#75,511
of 235,527 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#192
of 253 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,432,515 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,179 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 23.1. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% 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 235,527 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 63% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 253 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.