↓ Skip to main content

Disposable surgical face masks for preventing surgical wound infection in clean surgery

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#43 of 11,459)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (98th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
10 news outlets
twitter
582 tweeters
facebook
4 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page
video
1 video uploader

Citations

dimensions_citation
26 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
118 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
Disposable surgical face masks for preventing surgical wound infection in clean surgery
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd002929.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marina Vincent, Peggy Edwards

Abstract

Surgical face masks were originally developed to contain and filter droplets containing microorganisms expelled from the mouth and nasopharynx of healthcare workers during surgery, thereby providing protection for the patient. However, there are several ways in which surgical face masks could potentially contribute to contamination of the surgical wound, e.g. by incorrect wear or by leaking air from the side of the mask due to poor string tension. To determine whether the wearing of disposable surgical face masks by the surgical team during clean surgery reduces postoperative surgical wound infection. In December 2015, for this seventh update, we searched: The Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register; The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials; Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid EMBASE and EBSCO CINAHL. We also searched the bibliographies of all retrieved and relevant publications. There were no restrictions with respect to language, date of publication or study setting. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing the use of disposable surgical masks with the use of no mask. Two review authors extracted data independently. We included three trials, involving a total of 2106 participants. There was no statistically significant difference in infection rates between the masked and unmasked group in any of the trials. We identified no new trials for this latest update. From the limited results it is unclear whether the wearing of surgical face masks by members of the surgical team has any impact on surgical wound infection rates for patients undergoing clean surgery.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 582 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 118 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 118 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 21 18%
Student > Bachelor 18 15%
Student > Master 15 13%
Student > Postgraduate 9 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 6%
Other 19 16%
Unknown 29 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 37 31%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 11%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 5 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 4%
Environmental Science 3 3%
Other 17 14%
Unknown 38 32%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 546. 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 24 November 2020.
All research outputs
#20,861
of 16,269,453 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#43
of 11,459 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#665
of 266,557 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3
of 182 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,269,453 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,459 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 24.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 266,557 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 182 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.