↓ Skip to main content

Cyanoacrylate microbial sealants for skin preparation prior to surgery

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

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
77 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
Cyanoacrylate microbial sealants for skin preparation prior to surgery
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd008062.pub4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Callum Wood, Cheryl Phillips

Abstract

Surgical site infections (i.e. incisions that become infected) are a continuing concern in health care. Microbial sealant is a liquid that can be applied to the skin immediately before surgery and is thought to help reduce the incidence of surgical site infections (SSIs) by sealing in the skin flora, thus preventing contamination and infection of the surgical site. To assess the effects of the preoperative application of microbial sealants (compared with no microbial sealant) on rates of SSI in people undergoing clean surgery. For this second update we searched the following electronic databases in May 2015: the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid EMBASE and EBSCO CINAHL. There were no restrictions based on language or date of publication or study setting. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were eligible for inclusion if they involved people undergoing clean surgery (i.e. surgery that does not involve the breathing system, gut, genital or urinary tract, or any part of the body with an existing infection) in an operating theatre and compared the use of preoperative microbial sealants with no microbial sealant. All review authors independently extracted data on the characteristics, risk of bias and outcomes of the eligible trials. Seven trials (859 participants undergoing clean surgery) met the inclusion criteria. The trials all compared cyanoacrylate microbial sealant with no sealant. We found there were fewer SSIs with the use of microbial sealant (23/443 participants) than with the control comparison (46/416 participants). There was no evidence of a difference between the two groups in surgical site infection rates following the use of microbial sealants when the results were pooled (risk ratio (RR) 0.53, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.18). There were adverse events in three studies, but these were not judged to be a result of the use of microbial sealant. In this second update there is still insufficient evidence available to determine whether the use of microbial sealants reduces the risk of surgical site infection or not. Further rigorous, adequately-powered RCTs are required to investigate this properly.

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 77 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 77 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 20 26%
Student > Bachelor 14 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 14%
Researcher 8 10%
Student > Postgraduate 5 6%
Other 8 10%
Unknown 11 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 32 42%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 16%
Social Sciences 4 5%
Engineering 3 4%
Psychology 3 4%
Other 8 10%
Unknown 15 19%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 June 2020.
All research outputs
#4,159,822
of 15,513,754 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#6,766
of 11,208 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#76,296
of 267,982 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#126
of 188 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,513,754 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,208 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 23.2. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% 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 267,982 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 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 188 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.