↓ Skip to main content

Seprafilm® adhesion barrier: (2) a review of the clinical literature on intraabdominal use

Overview of attention for article published in Gynecological Surgery, April 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#34 of 162)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
patent
1 patent
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
65 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
80 Mendeley
Title
Seprafilm® adhesion barrier: (2) a review of the clinical literature on intraabdominal use
Published in
Gynecological Surgery, April 2012
DOI 10.1007/s10397-012-0742-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michael P. Diamond, Ellen L. Burns, Beverly Accomando, Sadiqa Mian, Lena Holmdahl

Abstract

This study seeks to provide a review of the clinical data published as of July 2011 concerning the postsurgical adhesion barrier, Seprafilm (chemically modified hyaluronic acid and carboxymethylcelulose; Genzyme Corporation, Cambridge, MA). Included articles detail the application of Seprafilm for intraabdominal uses that have been approved (on-label) and those considered investigational (off-label) by the FDA. Medline and EMBASE Drugs and Pharmaceuticals databases were searched for all original clinical Seprafilm research published as of July 2011. All human Seprafilm intraabdominal clinical reports and studies, excluding those related to prosthetic mesh were included. Data extraction involved the systematic review of each article. The data synthesis is the summary of Seprafilm human intraabdominal clinical reports and studies describing safety and/or efficacy. The safety and efficacy of Seprafilm in reducing postoperative adhesions has been clearly demonstrated in abdominal and pelvic laparotomy. While reports have described the safe and successful use of Seprafilm following laparoscopy, pediatric laparotomy, and in patients with malignancy and/or infection, the safety and efficacy of Seprafilm use in these procedures has not been definitively established in randomized controlled trials.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 80 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 1%
Russia 1 1%
Unknown 78 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 18%
Researcher 11 14%
Student > Bachelor 9 11%
Student > Master 8 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 8%
Other 16 20%
Unknown 16 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 26 33%
Engineering 8 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 8%
Chemistry 5 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 5%
Other 10 13%
Unknown 21 26%
Attention Score in Context

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 19 January 2023.
All research outputs
#6,618,355
of 23,565,002 outputs
Outputs from Gynecological Surgery
#34
of 162 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#44,051
of 162,614 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Gynecological Surgery
#1
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,565,002 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 162 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% 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 162,614 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 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them