| Title |
Cyanoacrylate microbial sealants for skin preparation prior to surgery
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd008062.pub4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Callum Wood, Cheryl Phillips |
| Abstract |
Surgical site infections (i.e. incisions that become infected) are a continuing concern in health care. Microbial sealant is a liquid that can be applied to the skin immediately before surgery and is thought to help reduce the incidence of surgical site infections (SSIs) by sealing in the skin flora, thus preventing contamination and infection of the surgical site. To assess the effects of the preoperative application of microbial sealants (compared with no microbial sealant) on rates of SSI in people undergoing clean surgery. For this second update we searched the following electronic databases in May 2015: the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid EMBASE and EBSCO CINAHL. There were no restrictions based on language or date of publication or study setting. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were eligible for inclusion if they involved people undergoing clean surgery (i.e. surgery that does not involve the breathing system, gut, genital or urinary tract, or any part of the body with an existing infection) in an operating theatre and compared the use of preoperative microbial sealants with no microbial sealant. All review authors independently extracted data on the characteristics, risk of bias and outcomes of the eligible trials. Seven trials (859 participants undergoing clean surgery) met the inclusion criteria. The trials all compared cyanoacrylate microbial sealant with no sealant. We found there were fewer SSIs with the use of microbial sealant (23/443 participants) than with the control comparison (46/416 participants). There was no evidence of a difference between the two groups in surgical site infection rates following the use of microbial sealants when the results were pooled (risk ratio (RR) 0.53, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.18). There were adverse events in three studies, but these were not judged to be a result of the use of microbial sealant. In this second update there is still insufficient evidence available to determine whether the use of microbial sealants reduces the risk of surgical site infection or not. Further rigorous, adequately-powered RCTs are required to investigate this properly. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 134 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 134 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 30 | 22% |
| Student > Bachelor | 17 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 16 | 12% |
| Researcher | 8 | 6% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 6 | 4% |
| Other | 17 | 13% |
| Unknown | 40 | 30% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 43 | 32% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 17 | 13% |
| Psychology | 5 | 4% |
| Social Sciences | 4 | 3% |
| Computer Science | 3 | 2% |
| Other | 17 | 13% |
| Unknown | 45 | 34% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 23 June 2020.
All research outputs
#6,959,369
of 25,457,297 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#8,078
of 11,499 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#102,914
of 349,922 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#175
of 237 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,297 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,499 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 40.0. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% 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 349,922 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 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 237 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.