↓ Skip to main content

Surgical Practice in the Current COVID-19 Pandemic: A Rapid Systematic Review

Overview of attention for article published in Clinics, January 2020
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#50 of 668)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
twitter
3 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
33 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
165 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
Surgical Practice in the Current COVID-19 Pandemic: A Rapid Systematic Review
Published in
Clinics, January 2020
DOI 10.6061/clinics/2020/e1923
Pubmed ID
Authors

Flávio Carneiro Hojaij, Lucas Albuquerque Chinelatto, Gustavo Henrique Pereira Boog, Júlia Adriana Kasmirski, João Vitor Ziroldo Lopes, Fernando Mauad Sacramento

Abstract

The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) outbreak </mac_aq>started in Wuhan, China, in December 2019, and evolved into a global problem in a short period. The pandemic has led to many social and health-care challenges. In this context, surgery is an area that is facing the need for many adaptations. In this systematic literature review, we analyzed different perspectives concerning this situation, aiming to provide recommendations that could guide surgeons and </mac_aq>entities toward screening, elective and emergency surgeries, decision making, and operating room management. A computerized search in PubMed, Scopus, and Scientific Electronic Library Online (SciELO) for relevant literature up to April 4, 2020, was performed. Articles were included if they were related to surgery dynamics in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Of the 281 articles found in our initial search and 15 articles from alternative sources, 39 were included in our review after a systematic evaluation. Concerning preoperative testing </mac_aq>for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection, 29 (74.4%) articles recommended some kind of </mac_aq>screening. Another major suggestion was postponing all (or at least selected) elective operations (29 articles, </mac_aq>74.4%). Several additional recommendations with respect to surgical practice or surgical staff were also assessed and discussed, such as performing laparoscopic surgeries and avoiding the use of electrocauterization. On the basis of the current literature, we concluded that any surgery that can be delayed should be postponed. COVID-19 screening is strongly recommended for all surgical cases. Moreover, surgical staff should be reduced to the essential members and provided with institutional psychological support.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 165 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 23 14%
Researcher 20 12%
Student > Master 13 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 5%
Other 39 24%
Unknown 51 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 51 31%
Nursing and Health Professions 15 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 4%
Social Sciences 6 4%
Psychology 5 3%
Other 23 14%
Unknown 58 35%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. 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 04 November 2020.
All research outputs
#1,707,837
of 21,241,420 outputs
Outputs from Clinics
#50
of 668 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#43,512
of 304,123 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinics
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,241,420 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 668 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 304,123 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them