↓ 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
twitter
15 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
73 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
283 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 15 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 283 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 279 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 52 18%
Researcher 33 12%
Other 30 11%
Student > Bachelor 30 11%
Student > Postgraduate 28 10%
Other 62 22%
Unknown 48 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 128 45%
Nursing and Health Professions 17 6%
Engineering 15 5%
Psychology 13 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 3%
Other 40 14%
Unknown 62 22%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 367. 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
#48,802
of 18,034,577 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#95
of 11,809 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#650
of 317,971 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5
of 248 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 18,034,577 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 11,809 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.4. 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 317,971 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 248 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.