| Title |
Primary closure versus delayed closure for non bite traumatic wounds within 24 hours post injury
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd008574.pub3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Martha C Eliya‐Masamba, Grace W Banda |
| Abstract |
Acute traumatic wounds are one of the common reasons why people present to the emergency department. Primary closure has traditionally been reserved for traumatic wounds presenting within six hours of injury and considered 'clean' by the attending surgeon, with the rest undergoing delayed primary closure as a means of controlling wound infection. Primary closure has the potential benefit of rapid wound healing but poses the potential threat of increased wound infection. There is currently no evidence to guide clinical decision-making on the best timing for closure of traumatic wounds. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 2 | 40% |
| Mexico | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 2 | 40% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 80% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 138 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 138 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 18 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 17 | 12% |
| Researcher | 11 | 8% |
| Other | 10 | 7% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 10 | 7% |
| Other | 29 | 21% |
| Unknown | 43 | 31% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 55 | 40% |
| Psychology | 7 | 5% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 4% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 3 | 2% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 2 | 1% |
| Other | 16 | 12% |
| Unknown | 50 | 36% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 October 2022.
All research outputs
#3,226,476
of 25,457,858 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,873
of 11,842 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#28,900
of 224,950 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#109
of 214 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,858 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,842 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 38.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% 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 224,950 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 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 214 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.