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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Scarring At Donor Sites After Split-Thickness Skin Graft
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Advances in skin & wound care (Print), April 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1097/01.asw.0000530684.31491.5f |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Matilda Karlsson, Moustafa Elmasry, Ingrid Steinvall, Folke Sjöberg, Pia Olofsson, Johan Thorfinn |
| Abstract |
The aim of this study was to evaluate scarring at split-thickness skin graft donor sites 8 years after surgery. At surgery, 67 patients were randomized to hydrofiber, polyurethane foam, or porcine xenograft treatment. Scars were evaluated with the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale. Results showed significant differences in observed scar outcomes at donor sites, leaving the polyurethane foam-treated and the porcine xenograft-treated patients with the least satisfying scars. Multivariable regression analysis showed that the group treated with the xenografts had worse scores for overall opinion of the scar than did the other groups (P = .03), the most important factor being pigmentation. There was no correlation between duration of healing time and quality of the scar. There were significant differences among the groups, with the hydrofiber group being the most satisfied with the appearance of their scar. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 41 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 41 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 6 | 15% |
| Other | 4 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 10% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 4 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 10% |
| Other | 5 | 12% |
| Unknown | 14 | 34% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 13 | 32% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 5% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 2% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 4 | 10% |
| Unknown | 18 | 44% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 03 April 2018.
All research outputs
#17,292,294
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Advances in skin & wound care (Print)
#815
of 1,497 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#221,892
of 343,807 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Advances in skin & wound care (Print)
#13
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,497 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.8. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 343,807 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.