↓ Skip to main content

The venous ulcer continues to be a clinical challenge: an update

Overview of attention for article published in Burns & Trauma, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#12 of 304)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
3 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
60 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
164 Mendeley
Title
The venous ulcer continues to be a clinical challenge: an update
Published in
Burns & Trauma, June 2018
DOI 10.1186/s41038-018-0119-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ting Xie, Junna Ye, Kittipan Rerkasem, Rajgopal Mani

Abstract

Venous ulcers are a common chronic problem in many countries especially in Northern Europe and USA. The overall prevalence of this condition is 1% rising to 3% in the over 65 years of age. Over the last 25 years, there have been many developments applicable to its diagnosis and treatment. These advances, notwithstanding healing response and recurrence, are variable, and the venous ulcer continues to be a clinical challenge. The pathogenesis of venous ulcers is unrelieved or ambulatory venous hypertension resulting mostly from deep venous thrombosis leading to venous incompetence, lipodermatosclerosis, leucocyte plugging of the capillaries, tissue hypoxia and microvascular dysfunction. It is not known what initiates venous ulcers. Triggers vary from trauma of the lower extremity to scratching to relieve itchy skin over the ankle region. Venous ulcers can be painful, and this condition presents an increasing burden of care. A systematic analysis of the role of technology used for diagnosis and management strongly supports the use of compression as a mainstay of standardised care. It further shows good evidence for the potential of some treatment procedures to accelerate healing. This article reviews the pathogenetic mechanisms, current diagnostic methods and standard care and its limitations.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 164 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 164 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 30 18%
Student > Master 14 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 8%
Researcher 12 7%
Student > Postgraduate 10 6%
Other 25 15%
Unknown 60 37%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 32 20%
Nursing and Health Professions 23 14%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 10 6%
Engineering 7 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 7 4%
Other 21 13%
Unknown 64 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 34. 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 28 December 2022.
All research outputs
#1,168,825
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Burns & Trauma
#12
of 304 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#25,062
of 341,817 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Burns & Trauma
#1
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 304 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 341,817 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 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them