↓ Skip to main content

Surgical versus non-surgical management of abdominal injury.

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (64th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
7 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages
wikipedia
3 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
74 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Surgical versus non-surgical management of abdominal injury.
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd007383.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Oyo-Ita, Angela, Chinnock, Paul, Ikpeme, Ikpeme A, Angela Oyo-Ita, Paul Chinnock, Ikpeme A Ikpeme

Abstract

Injury to the abdomen can be blunt or penetrating. Abdominal injury can damage internal organs such as the liver, spleen, kidneys, intestine, and large blood vessels. There are controversies about the best approach to manage abdominal injuries. To assess the effects of surgical and non-surgical interventions in the management of abdominal trauma in a haemodynamically stable and non-peritonitic abdomen. We searched the Cochrane Injuries Group's Specialised Register, The Cochrane Library, Ovid MEDLINE(R), Ovid MEDLINE(R) In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE(R) Daily and Ovid OLDMEDLINE(R), EMBASE Classic+EMBASE (Ovid), ISI WOS (SCI-EXPANDED, SSCI, CPCI-S & CPSI-SSH), CINAHL Plus (EBSCO), and clinical trials registers, and screened reference lists. We ran the most recent search on 17 September 2015. Randomised controlled trials of surgical interventions and non-surgical interventions involving people with abdominal injury who were haemodynamically stable with no signs of peritonitis. The abdominal injury could be blunt or penetrating. Two review authors independently applied the selection criteria. Data were extracted by two authors using a standard data extraction form, and are reported narratively. Two studies are included, which involved a total of 114 people with penetrating abdominal injuries. Both studies are at moderate risk of bias because the randomisation methods are not fully described, and the original study protocols are no longer available. The studies were undertaken in Finland between 1992 and 2002, by the same two researchers.In one study, 51 people were randomised to surgery or an observation protocol. None of the participants in the study died. Seven people had complications: 5 (18.5%) in the surgical group and 2 (8.3%) in the observation group; the difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.42; Fischer's exact). Among the 27 people who had surgery, 6 (22.2%) surgeries were negative laparotomies, and 15 (55.6%) were non-therapeutic.In the other study, 63 people were randomised to diagnostic laparoscopy (surgery) or an observation protocol. There were no deaths and no unnecessary surgeries in either group. Four people did not receive the intervention they were assigned. There was no difference in therapeutic operations between the two groups: 3 of 28 in the diagnostic laparoscopy group versus 1 of 31 in the observation protocol group (P = 0.337). Based on the findings of 2 studies involving a total of 114 people, there is no evidence to support the use of surgery over an observation protocol for people with penetrating abdominal trauma who have no signs of peritonitis and are stable.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 74 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Belgium 1 1%
Netherlands 1 1%
Unknown 72 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 14 19%
Student > Postgraduate 11 15%
Other 10 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 9%
Researcher 7 9%
Other 25 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 49 66%
Unspecified 12 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 7%
Computer Science 2 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 3%
Other 4 5%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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 26 June 2017.
All research outputs
#876,957
of 12,101,174 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,984
of 7,978 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#31,210
of 319,323 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#60
of 170 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,101,174 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,978 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% 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 319,323 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 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 170 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its contemporaries.