↓ Skip to main content

Surgery for small asymptomatic abdominal aortic aneurysms

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

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (67th percentile)

Mentioned by

wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
52 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
141 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
Surgery for small asymptomatic abdominal aortic aneurysms
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.CD001835.pub4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Filardo, Giovanni, Powell, Janet T, Martinez, Melissa Ashley-Marie, Ballard, David J

Abstract

An abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) is an abnormal ballooning of the major abdominal artery. Some AAAs present as emergencies and require surgery; others remain asymptomatic. Treatment of asymptomatic AAAs depends on many factors, but an important one is the size of the aneurysm, as risk of rupture increases with aneurysm size. Large asymptomatic AAAs (greater than 5.5 cm in diameter) are usually repaired surgically; very small AAAs (less than 4.0 cm diameter) are monitored with ultrasonography. Debate continues over the appropriate roles of immediate repair and surveillance with repair on subsequent enlargement in people presenting with asymptomatic AAAs of 4.0 cm to 5.5 cm diameter. This is the third update of the review first published in 1999. To compare mortality, quality of life, and cost effectiveness of immediate surgical repair versus routine ultrasound surveillance in people with asymptomatic AAAs between 4.0 cm and 5.5 cm in diameter. For this update, the Cochrane Peripheral Vascular Diseases Group Trials Search Co-ordinator searched the Specialised Register (February 2014) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2014, Issue 1). We checked reference lists of relevant articles for additional studies. Randomised controlled trials in which men and women with asymptomatic AAAs of diameter 4.0 cm to 5.5 cm were randomly allocated to immediate repair or imaging-based surveillance at least every six months. Outcomes had to include mortality or survival. Three members of the review team independently extracted the data, which were cross-checked by other team members. Risk ratios (RR) (endovascular aneurysm repair only), hazard ratios (HR) (open repair only), and 95% confidence intervals based on Mantel-Haenszel Chi(2) statistic were estimated at one and six years (open repair only) following randomisation. We included all relevant published studies in this review. For this update, four trials with a combined total of 3314 participants fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Two trials compared surveillance with immediate open repair; two trials compared surveillance with immediate endovascular repair. Overall, the risk of bias within the included studies was low and the quality of the evidence high. The four trials showed an early survival benefit in the surveillance group (due to 30-day operative mortality with surgery) but no significant differences in long-term survival (adjusted HR 0.88, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.75 to 1.02, mean follow-up 10 years; HR 1.21, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.54, mean follow-up 4.9 years; HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.93, median follow-up 32.4 months; HR 1.01, 95% CI 0.49 to 2.07, mean follow-up 20 months). A pooled analysis of participant-level data from two trials (with a maximum follow-up of seven to eight years) showed no statistically significant difference in survival between immediate open repair and surveillance (propensity score-adjusted HR 0.99; 95% CI 0.83 to 1.18), and that this lack of treatment effect did not vary by AAA diameter (P = 0.39) or participant age (P = 0.61). The meta-analysis of mortality at one year for the endovascular trials likewise showed no significant association (RR at one year 1.15, 95% CI 0.60 to 2.17). Quality-of-life results among trials were conflicting. The results from the four trials to date demonstrate no advantage to immediate repair for small AAA (4.0 cm to 5.5 cm), regardless of whether open or endovascular repair is used and, at least for open repair, regardless of patient age and AAA diameter. Thus, neither immediate open nor immediate endovascular repair of small AAAs is supported by currently available evidence.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 141 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 138 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 25 18%
Student > Bachelor 22 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 13%
Other 14 10%
Researcher 12 9%
Other 29 21%
Unknown 20 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 68 48%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 4%
Social Sciences 6 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 4%
Other 21 15%
Unknown 26 18%

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 31 May 2017.
All research outputs
#3,009,285
of 11,194,639 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#6,180
of 9,054 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#71,727
of 237,649 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#205
of 268 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 11,194,639 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 50th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,054 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.2. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% 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 237,649 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 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 268 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.