| Title |
Subcutaneous closure versus no subcutaneous closure after non-caesarean surgical procedures
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd010425.pub2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Kurinchi Selvan Gurusamy, Clare D Toon, Brian R Davidson |
| Abstract |
Most surgical procedures involve a cut in the skin that allows the surgeon to gain access to the surgical site. Most surgical wounds are closed fully at the end of the procedure, and this review focuses on these. The human body has multiple layers of tissues, and the skin is the outermost of these layers. The loose connective tissue just beneath the skin is called subcutaneous tissue, and this generally contains fat. There is uncertainty about closure of subcutaneous tissue after surgery: some surgeons advocate closure of subcutaneous tissue, as they consider this closes dead space and leads to a decrease in wound complications; others consider closure of subcutaneous tissue to be an unnecessary step that increases operating time and involves the use of additional suture material without offering any benefit. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 3 | 38% |
| Spain | 1 | 13% |
| Unknown | 4 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 63% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 13% |
| Scientists | 1 | 13% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 13% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 140 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Ireland | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 138 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 15 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 14 | 10% |
| Other | 13 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 13 | 9% |
| Researcher | 13 | 9% |
| Other | 33 | 24% |
| Unknown | 39 | 28% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 61 | 44% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 12 | 9% |
| Psychology | 6 | 4% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 5 | 4% |
| Computer Science | 3 | 2% |
| Other | 7 | 5% |
| Unknown | 46 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 06 July 2018.
All research outputs
#5,675,637
of 23,517,535 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#7,637
of 12,738 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#64,786
of 309,121 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#169
of 252 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,517,535 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,738 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 33.0. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% 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 309,121 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 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 252 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.