↓ Skip to main content

Perioperative smoking cessation in vascular surgery: challenges with a randomized controlled trial

Overview of attention for article published in Trials, October 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (51st percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
33 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
Perioperative smoking cessation in vascular surgery: challenges with a randomized controlled trial
Published in
Trials, October 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13063-015-0965-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mette Kehlet, Sabine Heeseman, Hanne Tønnesen, Torben V. Schroeder

Abstract

The effect of intensive smoking cessation programs on postoperative complications has never before been assessed in soft tissue surgery when smoking cessation is initiated on the day of surgery. A single-blinded randomized clinical trial conducted at two vascular surgery departments in Denmark. The intervention group was offered the Gold Standard Program (GSP) for smoking cessation intervention. The control group was offered the departments' standard care. Inclusion criteria were patients with planned open peripheral vascular surgery and who were daily smokers. According to the power calculation a total of 144 patients were needed in the trial. Due to slow patient inclusion, the trial was terminated prior to fulfilling the power calculation. Thirty-two patients were included in the trial from March 2011 to September 2012. Of these, 11 were randomized to the GSP intervention and 21 as controls. There was no difference in 30-day complication rates or 6-week abstinence rates between the two groups. A trial assessing the effect of smoking cessation on postoperative complications on the day of soft tissue surgery is still needed. If another trial is to be planned it must be more pragmatic with less extended inclusion criteria and conducted nationally or internationally to ensure enough patients for the trial. ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT01469091 ). Registration date: 27 October 2011.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Indonesia 1 3%
Unknown 32 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 5 15%
Student > Bachelor 4 12%
Librarian 3 9%
Other 3 9%
Researcher 3 9%
Other 6 18%
Unknown 9 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 18 55%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 6%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 3%
Psychology 1 3%
Social Sciences 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 9 27%

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 06 October 2015.
All research outputs
#2,721,823
of 6,297,749 outputs
Outputs from Trials
#1,088
of 1,896 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#96,200
of 201,179 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Trials
#81
of 132 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 6,297,749 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 55th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,896 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.3. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% 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 201,179 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 51% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 132 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.