↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Wound drainage after plastic and reconstructive surgery of the breast

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

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (69th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
113 Mendeley
Title
Wound drainage after plastic and reconstructive surgery of the breast
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd007258.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sameena M Khan, Mark J C Smeulders, Chantal M Van der Horst

Abstract

Wound drains are often used after plastic and reconstructive surgery of the breast, in order to reduce potential complications. It is unclear whether there is any evidence to support this practice and we therefore undertook a systematic review of the best evidence available. To compare the safety and efficacy of the use of wound drains following elective plastic and reconstructive surgery procedures of the breast. For the first update of this review we searched the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (searched 4 March 2015); The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2015, Issue 2); Ovid MEDLINE (2012 to March 3 2015); Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations March 3 2015); Ovid EMBASE (2012 to March 3 2015); and EBSCO CINAHL (2012 to March 4 2015). There were no restrictions on the basis of date or language of publication. Three review authors undertook independent screening of the search results. All randomised trials (RCTs) that compared the use of a wound drain with no wound drain following plastic and reconstructive surgery of the breast (breast augmentation, breast reduction and breast reconstruction) in women were eligible. Two review authors undertook independent data extraction of study characteristics, methodological quality and outcomes (e.g. infection, other wound complications, pain, and length of hospital stay). Risk of bias was assessed independently by two review authors. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MD) for continuous outcomes, with 95% confidence intervals. Analysis was on an intention-to-treat basis. Three randomised trials were identified and included in the review out of 190 studies that were initially screened; all evaluated wound drainage after breast reduction surgery. No new trials were identified for this first update. In total there were 306 women in the three trials, and 505 breasts were studied (254 drained, and 251 who were not drained). Apart from a significantly shorter duration of hospital stay for those participants who did not have drains (MD 0.77; 95% CI 0.40 to 1.14), there was no statistically significant impact of the use of drains on outcomes. The limited evidence available shows no significant benefit of using post-operative wound drains in reduction mammoplasty, though hospital stay may be shorter when drains are not used. No data are available for breast augmentation or breast reconstruction, and this requires investigation.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 113 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 113 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 14 12%
Student > Master 12 11%
Researcher 10 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 6%
Other 6 5%
Other 18 16%
Unknown 46 41%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 39 35%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 9%
Psychology 4 4%
Unspecified 3 3%
Social Sciences 2 2%
Other 9 8%
Unknown 46 41%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 01 February 2022.
All research outputs
#6,800,116
of 22,832,057 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#8,451
of 12,320 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#84,757
of 283,220 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#238
of 304 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,832,057 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,320 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 30.4. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% 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 283,220 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 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 304 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.