↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Continuous versus interrupted skin sutures for non-obstetric surgery

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
38 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
107 Mendeley
Title
Continuous versus interrupted skin sutures for non-obstetric surgery
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2014
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd010365.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kurinchi Selvan Gurusamy, Clare D Toon, Victoria B Allen, Brian R Davidson

Abstract

Most surgical procedures involve a cut in the skin, allowing the surgeon to gain access to the surgical site. Most surgical wounds are closed fully at the end of the procedure; this review focuses on these closed wounds. There are many ways to close the surgical incision, for example, using sutures (stitches), staples, tissue adhesives or tapes. Skin sutures can be continuous or interrupted. In general, continuous sutures are usually subcuticular and can be absorbable or non-absorbable, while interrupted sutures are usually non-absorbable and involve the full thickness of the skin - although some surgeons do use absorbable interrupted sutures.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 <1%
Unknown 106 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 17 16%
Student > Bachelor 15 14%
Researcher 14 13%
Student > Postgraduate 12 11%
Other 9 8%
Other 17 16%
Unknown 23 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 49 46%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 12%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 3%
Psychology 3 3%
Neuroscience 2 2%
Other 10 9%
Unknown 27 25%

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 22 June 2020.
All research outputs
#4,886,843
of 18,009,382 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#7,193
of 11,806 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#50,531
of 195,624 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#136
of 206 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 18,009,382 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,806 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.4. 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 195,624 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 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 206 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.