↓ Skip to main content

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Guideline for the Prevention of Surgical Site Infection, 2017

Overview of attention for article published in JAMA Surgery, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#1 of 2,991)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
88 news outlets
blogs
2 blogs
policy
3 policy sources
twitter
2414 tweeters
facebook
180 Facebook pages
wikipedia
3 Wikipedia pages
googleplus
8 Google+ users

Citations

dimensions_citation
1361 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
2326 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Guideline for the Prevention of Surgical Site Infection, 2017
Published in
JAMA Surgery, August 2017
DOI 10.1001/jamasurg.2017.0904
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sandra I. Berríos-Torres, Craig A. Umscheid, Dale W. Bratzler, Brian Leas, Erin C. Stone, Rachel R. Kelz, Caroline E. Reinke, Sherry Morgan, Joseph S. Solomkin, John E. Mazuski, E. Patchen Dellinger, Kamal M. F. Itani, Elie F. Berbari, John Segreti, Javad Parvizi, Joan Blanchard, George Allen, Jan A. J. W. Kluytmans, Rodney Donlan, William P. Schecter

Abstract

The human and financial costs of treating surgical site infections (SSIs) are increasing. The number of surgical procedures performed in the United States continues to rise, and surgical patients are initially seen with increasingly complex comorbidities. It is estimated that approximately half of SSIs are deemed preventable using evidence-based strategies. To provide new and updated evidence-based recommendations for the prevention of SSI. A targeted systematic review of the literature was conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library from 1998 through April 2014. A modified Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to assess the quality of evidence and the strength of the resulting recommendation and to provide explicit links between them. Of 5487 potentially relevant studies identified in literature searches, 5759 titles and abstracts were screened, and 896 underwent full-text review by 2 independent reviewers. After exclusions, 170 studies were extracted into evidence, evaluated, and categorized. Before surgery, patients should shower or bathe (full body) with soap (antimicrobial or nonantimicrobial) or an antiseptic agent on at least the night before the operative day. Antimicrobial prophylaxis should be administered only when indicated based on published clinical practice guidelines and timed such that a bactericidal concentration of the agents is established in the serum and tissues when the incision is made. In cesarean section procedures, antimicrobial prophylaxis should be administered before skin incision. Skin preparation in the operating room should be performed using an alcohol-based agent unless contraindicated. For clean and clean-contaminated procedures, additional prophylactic antimicrobial agent doses should not be administered after the surgical incision is closed in the operating room, even in the presence of a drain. Topical antimicrobial agents should not be applied to the surgical incision. During surgery, glycemic control should be implemented using blood glucose target levels less than 200 mg/dL, and normothermia should be maintained in all patients. Increased fraction of inspired oxygen should be administered during surgery and after extubation in the immediate postoperative period for patients with normal pulmonary function undergoing general anesthesia with endotracheal intubation. Transfusion of blood products should not be withheld from surgical patients as a means to prevent SSI. This guideline is intended to provide new and updated evidence-based recommendations for the prevention of SSI and should be incorporated into comprehensive surgical quality improvement programs to improve patient safety.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2,414 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 2,326 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Portugal 1 <1%
Colombia 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 2319 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 291 13%
Other 287 12%
Student > Postgraduate 255 11%
Student > Bachelor 249 11%
Researcher 241 10%
Other 514 22%
Unknown 489 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 1068 46%
Nursing and Health Professions 232 10%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 91 4%
Immunology and Microbiology 49 2%
Engineering 42 2%
Other 229 10%
Unknown 615 26%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2367. 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 November 2021.
All research outputs
#2,264
of 20,106,890 outputs
Outputs from JAMA Surgery
#1
of 2,991 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#32
of 280,078 outputs
Outputs of similar age from JAMA Surgery
#1
of 81 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 20,106,890 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,991 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 47.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 280,078 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 81 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.