The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Open retromuscular mesh repair of complex incisional hernia: predictors of wound events and recurrence.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“This finding compared to a recurrence rate of 11% in medium-weight mesh repairs (P = .045).”
From Effect of Hernia Mesh Weights on Postoperative Patient-Related and Clinical Outcomes After Open Ventral Hernia Repair: A Randomized Clinical Trial (2021) · cites this paper as [33]
In the citing paper
“reports of lightweight mesh fracture are mounting for both polypropylene and monofilament polyester.30,33,34”
From Effect of Hernia Mesh Weights on Postoperative Patient-Related and Clinical Outcomes After Open Ventral Hernia Repair: A Randomized Clinical Trial (2021) · cites this paper as [33]
In the citing paper
“Cobb et al 33 identified a recurrence rate of 23% for lightweight mesh repairs, more than half of which were attributed to mesh fracture, with a mean follow-up of only 17 months.”
From Effect of Hernia Mesh Weights on Postoperative Patient-Related and Clinical Outcomes After Open Ventral Hernia Repair: A Randomized Clinical Trial (2021) · cites this paper as [33]
In the citing paper
“Although lightweight mesh has demonstrated limitations in regard to durability for such repairs”
From Effect of Hernia Mesh Weights on Postoperative Patient-Related and Clinical Outcomes After Open Ventral Hernia Repair: A Randomized Clinical Trial (2021) · cites this paper as [33]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Krpata, D. M., Petro, C. C., Prabhu, A. S., Tastaldi, L., Zolin, S., Fafaj, A., Rosenblatt, S., Poulose, B. K., Pierce, R. A., Warren, J. A., et al. (2021) · JAMA Surgery · doi:10.1001/jamasurg.2021.4309 · Cited by 78
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Cobb, W. S., Warren, J. A., Ewing, J. A., Burnikel, A., Merchant, M., & Carbonell, A. M.
- Venue
- Journal of the American College of Surgeons
- Published
- 2015-04
- Volume
- 220
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 606-613
- ISSN
- 1072-7515
- Cited by
- 152
- References
- 0
- Language
- en
- Licence
- www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
