↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Interventions for reducing wrong-site surgery and invasive clinical procedures

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (69th percentile)

Mentioned by

35 tweeters
4 Facebook pages


12 Dimensions

Readers on

223 Mendeley
1 CiteULike
Interventions for reducing wrong-site surgery and invasive clinical procedures
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd009404.pub3
Pubmed ID

Catherine M Algie, Robert K Mahar, Jason Wasiak, Lachlan Batty, Russell L Gruen, Patrick D Mahar


Specific clinical interventions are needed to reduce wrong-site surgery, which is a rare but potentially disastrous clinical error. Risk factors contributing to wrong-site surgery are variable and complex. The introduction of organisational and professional clinical strategies have a role in minimising wrong-site surgery. To evaluate the effectiveness of organisational and professional interventions for reducing wrong-site surgery (including wrong-side, wrong-procedure and wrong-patient surgery), including non-surgical invasive clinical procedures such as regional blocks, dermatological, obstetric and dental procedures and emergency surgical procedures not undertaken within the operating theatre. For this update, we searched the following electronic databases: the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Group Specialised Register (January 2014), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library 2014), MEDLINE (June 2011 to January 2014), EMBASE (June 2011 to January 2014), CINAHL (June 2011 to January 2014), Dissertations and Theses (June 2011 to January 2014), African Index Medicus, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences database, Virtual Health Library, Pan American Health Organization Database and the World Health Organization Library Information System. Database searches were conducted in January 2014. We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs), non-randomised controlled trials, controlled before-after studies (CBAs) with at least two intervention and control sites, and interrupted-time-series (ITS) studies where the intervention time was clearly defined and there were at least three data points before and three after the intervention. We included two ITS studies that evaluated the effectiveness of organisational and professional interventions for reducing wrong-site surgery, including wrong-side and wrong-procedure surgery. Participants included all healthcare professionals providing care to surgical patients; studies where patients were involved to avoid the incorrect procedures or studies with interventions addressed to healthcare managers, administrators, stakeholders or health insurers. Two review authors independently assesses the quality and abstracted data of all eligible studies using a standardised data extraction form, modified from the Cochrane EPOC checklists. We contacted study authors for additional information. In the initial review, we included one ITS study that evaluated a targeted educational intervention aimed at reducing the incidence of wrong-site tooth extractions. The intervention included examination of previous cases of wrong-site tooth extractions, educational intervention including a presentation of cases of erroneous extractions, explanation of relevant clinical guidelines and feedback by an instructor. Data were reported from all patients on the surveillance system of a University Medical centre in Taiwan with a total of 24,406 tooth extractions before the intervention and 28,084 tooth extractions after the intervention. We re-analysed the data using the Prais-Winsten time series and the change in level for annual number of mishaps was statistically significant at -4.52 (95% confidence interval (CI) -6.83 to -2.217) (standard error (SE) 0.5380). The change in slope was statistically significant at -1.16 (95% CI -2.22 to -0.10) (SE 0.2472; P < 0.05).This update includes an additional study reporting on the incidence of neurological WSS at a university hospital both before and after the Universal Protocol's implementation. A total of 22,743 patients undergoing neurosurgical procedures at the University of Illionois College of Medicine at Peoria, Illinois, United States of America were reported. Of these, 7286 patients were reported before the intervention and 15,456 patients were reported after the intervention. The authors found a significant difference (P < 0.001) in the incidence of WSS between the before period, 1999 to 2004, and the after period, 2005 to 2011.  Similarly, data were re-analysed using Prais-Winsten regression to correct for autocorrelation. As the incidences were reported by year only and the intervention occurred in July 2004, the intervention year 2004 was excluded from the analysis. The change in level at the point the intervention was introduced was not statistically significant at -0.078 percentage points (pp) (95% CI -0.176 pp to 0.02 pp; SE 0.042; P = 0.103). The change in slope was statistically significant at 0.031 (95% CI 0.004 to 0.058; SE 0.012; P < 0.05). The findings of this update added one additional ITS study to the previous review which contained one ITS study. The original review suggested that the use of a specific educational intervention in the context of a dental outpatient setting, which targets junior dental staff using a training session that included cases of wrong-site surgery, presentation of clinical guidelines and feedback by an instructor, was associated with a reduction in the incidence of wrong-site tooth extractions. The additional study in this update evaluated the annual incidence rates of wrong-site surgery in a neurosurgical population before and after the implementation of the Universal Protocol. The data suggested a strong downward trend in the incidence of wrong-site surgery prior to the intervention with the incidence rate approaching zero. The effect of the intervention in these studies however remains unclear, as data reflect only two small low-quality studies in very specific population groups.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 35 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 223 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 1%
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Unknown 217 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 44 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 23 10%
Researcher 22 10%
Student > Bachelor 22 10%
Other 19 9%
Other 50 22%
Unknown 43 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 80 36%
Nursing and Health Professions 33 15%
Social Sciences 13 6%
Psychology 12 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 6 3%
Other 28 13%
Unknown 51 23%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 22. 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 10 July 2018.
All research outputs
of 17,131,911 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 11,627 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 231,873 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 244 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,131,911 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,627 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 24.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% 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 231,873 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 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 244 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.