| Title |
The effect of LED on blood microcirculation during chronic wound healing in diabetic and non-diabetic patients—a prospective, double-blind randomized study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Lasers in Medical Science, March 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10103-017-2189-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Igor Frangez, Ksenija Cankar, Helena Ban Frangez, Dragica Maja Smrke |
| Abstract |
Chronic wounds, especially in diabetic patients, represent a challenging health issue. Since standard treatment protocols often do not provide satisfactory results, additional treatment methods-like phototherapy using low-level light therapy-are being investigated. The aim of our study was to evaluate the effect of phototherapy with light-emitting diodes on chronic wound treatment in diabetic and non-diabetic patients. Since a sufficient blood supply is mandatory for wound healing, the evaluation of microcirculation in the healthy skin at a wound's edge was the main outcome measure. Forty non-diabetic patients and 39 diabetics with lower limb chronic wounds who were referred to the University Medical Center Ljubljana between October 2012 and June 2014 were randomized to the treated and control groups. The treated group received phototherapy with LED 2.4 J/cm(2) (wavelengths 625, 660, 850 nm) three times a week for 8 weeks, and the control group received phototherapy with broadband 580-900 nm and power density 0.72 J/cm(2). Microcirculation was measured using laser Doppler. A significant increase in blood flow was noted in the treated group of diabetic and non-diabetic patients (p = 0.040 and p = 0.033), while there was no difference in the control groups. Additional Falanga wound bed score evaluation showed a significant improvement in both treated groups as compared to the control group. According to our results, phototherapy with LED was shown to be an effective additional treatment method for chronic wounds in diabetic and non-diabetic patients. |
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 | 2 | 100% |
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 98 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 98 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 17 | 17% |
| Other | 10 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 9% |
| Researcher | 8 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 8% |
| Other | 18 | 18% |
| Unknown | 28 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 31 | 32% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 12 | 12% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 5 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 3% |
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 12 | 12% |
| Unknown | 33 | 34% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 14 September 2021.
All research outputs
#12,841,487
of 22,968,808 outputs
Outputs from Lasers in Medical Science
#486
of 1,316 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#146,091
of 309,173 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Lasers in Medical Science
#11
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,968,808 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,316 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% 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 309,173 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 52% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 23 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.