↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Tissue adhesives for closure of surgical incisions

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (98th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
42 news outlets
blogs
2 blogs
policy
1 policy source
twitter
14 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
95 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
315 Mendeley
Title
Tissue adhesives for closure of surgical incisions
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2014
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd004287.pub4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jo C Dumville, Paul Coulthard, Helen V Worthington, Philip Riley, Neil Patel, James Darcey, Marco Esposito, Maarten van der Elst, Oscar J F van Waes

Abstract

Sutures (stitches), staples and adhesive tapes have been used for many years as methods of wound closure, but tissue adhesives have entered clinical practice more recently. Closure of wounds with sutures enables the closure to be meticulous, but the sutures may show tissue reactivity and can require removal. Tissue adhesives offer the advantages of an absence of risk of needlestick injury and no requirement to remove sutures later. Initially, tissue adhesives were used primarily in emergency room settings, but this review looks at the use of tissue adhesives in the operating room/theatre where surgeons are using them increasingly for the closure of surgical skin incisions.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 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 315 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Unknown 311 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 53 17%
Researcher 34 11%
Student > Bachelor 34 11%
Other 32 10%
Student > Postgraduate 30 10%
Other 67 21%
Unknown 65 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 136 43%
Nursing and Health Professions 19 6%
Engineering 15 5%
Psychology 14 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 3%
Other 44 14%
Unknown 79 25%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 373. 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 25 June 2020.
All research outputs
#69,876
of 22,953,506 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#122
of 12,333 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#708
of 362,999 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4
of 276 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,953,506 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,333 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 30.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 362,999 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 276 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.