↓ Skip to main content

Clinical and cost-effectiveness of compression hosiery versus compression bandages in treatment of venous leg ulcers (Venous leg Ulcer Study IV, VenUS IV): a randomised controlled trial

Overview of attention for article published in The Lancet, December 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (86th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
3 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
policy
2 policy sources
twitter
35 X users
peer_reviews
1 peer review site
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
176 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
296 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Clinical and cost-effectiveness of compression hosiery versus compression bandages in treatment of venous leg ulcers (Venous leg Ulcer Study IV, VenUS IV): a randomised controlled trial
Published in
The Lancet, December 2013
DOI 10.1016/s0140-6736(13)62368-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rebecca L Ashby, Rhian Gabe, Shehzad Ali, Una Adderley, J Martin Bland, Nicky A Cullum, Jo C Dumville, Cynthia P Iglesias, Arthur R Kang'ombe, Marta O Soares, Nikki C Stubbs, David J Torgerson

Abstract

Drawbacks exist with the standard treatment (four-layer compression bandages) for venous leg ulcers. We have therefore compared the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of two-layer compression hosiery with the four-layer bandage for the treatment of such ulcers.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 35 X users 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 296 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 2 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 290 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 38 13%
Student > Bachelor 38 13%
Researcher 25 8%
Student > Postgraduate 23 8%
Other 22 7%
Other 63 21%
Unknown 87 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 78 26%
Nursing and Health Professions 65 22%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 12 4%
Psychology 9 3%
Social Sciences 8 3%
Other 32 11%
Unknown 92 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 60. 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 29 April 2022.
All research outputs
#715,024
of 25,508,813 outputs
Outputs from The Lancet
#6,050
of 42,784 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#7,208
of 320,499 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The Lancet
#73
of 549 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,508,813 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 42,784 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 68.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% 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 320,499 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 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 549 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.