↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Barrier agents for adhesion prevention after gynaecological surgery

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

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (58th percentile)

Mentioned by

4 tweeters


75 Dimensions

Readers on

162 Mendeley
Barrier agents for adhesion prevention after gynaecological surgery
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd000475.pub3
Pubmed ID

Gaity Ahmad, Helena O'Flynn, Akshay Hindocha, Andrew Watson


Pelvic adhesions can form as a result of inflammation, endometriosis or surgical trauma. During pelvic surgery, strategies to reduce pelvic adhesion formation include placing barrier agents such as oxidised regenerated cellulose, polytetrafluoroethylene or fibrin sheets between the pelvic structures. To evaluate the effects of barrier agents used during pelvic surgery on rates of pain, live birth and postoperative adhesions in women of reproductive age. We searched the following databases in February 2015: the Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group (MDSG) Specialised Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and trial registries. We handsearched relevant journals, conference proceedings and grey literature sources and we contacted pharmaceutical companies for information. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of the use of barrier agents compared with other barrier agents, placebo or no treatment for the prevention of adhesions in women undergoing gynaecological surgery. Two review authors independently assessed trials for eligibility and risk of bias and extracted the data. We calculated odds ratios (ORs) or mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using a fixed effect model. The overall quality of the evidence was assessed using GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) methods. Eighteen RCTs (1262 women) were included. Six RCTs randomised women; the remainder randomised pelvic organs. Laparoscopy (eight RCTs) and laparotomy (10 RCTs) were the primary surgical techniques. Indications for surgery included myomectomy (six RCTs), ovarian surgery (five RCTs), pelvic adhesions (five RCTs), endometriosis (one RCT) and mixed (one RCT). The sole indication for surgery in three of the RCTs was infertility. Twelve RCTs reported commercial funding; the rest did not state their source of funding.No studies reported either of our primary outcomes of pelvic pain and live birth. Oxidised regenerated cellulose (Interceed) versus no treatment at laparoscopy or laparotomy (13 RCTs)At second-look laparoscopy oxidised regenerated cellulose at laparoscopy was associated with reduced incidence of de novo adhesions (OR 0.50, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.83, three RCTs, 360 participants, I(2) = 75%, very low-quality evidence) and of re-formed adhesions (OR 0.17, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.41, three RCTs, 100 participants, I(2) = 36%, low quality evidence).At second-look laparoscopy no evidence was found of any difference between the groups in the incidence of de novo adhesions after laparotomy (OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.25, one RCT, 271 participants, I(2) = 41%, low-quality evidence). However, the incidence of re-formed adhesions was lower in the intervention group (OR 0.38, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.55, six RCTs, 554 participants, moderate-quality evidence). Expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (Gore-Tex) versus no treatment at gynaecological surgery (one RCT) The evidence suggested that at second-look laparoscopy expanded polytetrafluoroethylene was associated with a reduction in new adhesion formation (OR 0.17, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.94, one RCT, 42 participants, low-quality evidence). Expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (Gore-Tex) versus oxidised regenerated cellulose (Interceed) at gynaecological surgery (two RCTs)One RCT found no difference between the groups at second-look laparoscopy in the incidence of de novo adhesions (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.26 to 3.41, 38 participants, very low-quality evidence). A second RCT suggested that the expanded polytetrafluoroethylene group had a lower adhesion score (out of 11) (MD -3.79, 95% CI -5.12 to -2.46, 62 participants, very low-quality evidence) and a lower risk of re-formed adhesions (OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.80, 23 participants, very low-quality evidence). This last finding was sensitive to choice of effect estimate and no longer suggested a difference between the groups when a risk ratio was calculated (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.13 to 1.01). Sodium hyaluronate and carboxymethylcellulose (Seprafilm) versus no treatment at gynaecological surgery (one RCT)Sodium hyaluronate and carboxymethylcellulose was associated with a lower adhesion score (out of 4) at second-look laparoscopy (MD 0.49, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.45, one RCT, 127 participants, moderate-quality evidence). Fibrin sheet versus no treatment at laparoscopic myomectomy (one RCT)There was no evidence of a difference between the groups in the incidence of de novo adhesions at second-look laparoscopy (OR 1.20, 95% CI 0.42 to 3.41, one RCT, 62 participants) or in adhesion score (out of 4) (MD 0.14, 95% CI -0.67 to 0.39, one RCT, 48 participants, low-quality evidence).Fourteen of the 18 RCTs reported adverse events. No events directly attributed to adhesion agents were reported. We found no evidence on the effects of barrier agents used during pelvic surgery on either pain or fertility outcomes in women of reproductive age.Low quality evidence suggests that oxidised regenerated cellulose (Interceed), expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (Gore-Tex) and sodium hyaluronate with carboxymethylcellulose (Seprafilm) may all be more effective than no treatment in reducing the incidence of adhesion formation following pelvic surgery. There is no conclusive evidence on the relative effectiveness of these interventions. There is no evidence to suggest that fibrin sheet is more effective than no treatment. No adverse events directly attributed to the adhesion agents were reported. The quality of the evidence ranged from very low to moderate. The most common limitations were imprecision and poor reporting of study methods. Most studies were commercially funded, and publication bias could not be ruled out.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 162 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%
Unknown 160 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 28 17%
Researcher 21 13%
Student > Bachelor 19 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 14 9%
Student > Postgraduate 13 8%
Other 38 23%
Unknown 29 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 66 41%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 4%
Psychology 6 4%
Other 27 17%
Unknown 37 23%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 04 May 2015.
All research outputs
of 16,476,438 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 11,507 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 232,665 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 235 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,476,438 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,507 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 24.3. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% 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 232,665 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 58% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 235 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.