↓ Skip to main content

Systematic review of wound measurement instruments

Overview of attention for article published in Wound Repair & Regeneration, May 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (67th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (58th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
15 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
Systematic review of wound measurement instruments
Published in
Wound Repair & Regeneration, May 2012
DOI 10.1111/j.1524-475x.2012.00783.x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Susan M. O'Meara, J. Martin Bland, Jo C. Dumville, Nicky A. Cullum

Abstract

The objective was to undertake a systematic review of the performance of wound measurement instruments used for patients with pressure ulcers. Studies of any design, evaluating methods for estimating wound diameter, depth, surface area, or volume in patients with pressure ulcers were included. Eligible evaluations had to report intra- or inter-rater reliability, accuracy, agreement, or feasibility of methods. Electronic databases and other sources were accessed for study identification. Included studies were critically appraised using a modified checklist for diagnostic test evaluations. Twelve studies were included. Most had methodological problems and/or used inappropriate statistical methods. Reliable methods for measuring pressure ulcer surface area may include: grid tracings from photographs combined with whole plus partial square count; a portable digital pad; and stereophotogrammetry combined with computerized image analysis. The agreement between photographic tracing and direct transparency tracing may be satisfactory (both methods being combined with computerized planimetry). No definitive conclusions could be reached about studies of diameter or depth; this means that there is little evidence to underpin recommendations in clinical guidelines. Evaluations of volume measurement were of poor quality, and there were few data on feasibility. Further primary research is needed to evaluate methods of wound measurement used in clinical practice.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 15 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 15 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 3 20%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 13%
Lecturer 1 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 7%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 1 7%
Other 4 27%
Unknown 3 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 40%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 7%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 7%
Computer Science 1 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 7%
Other 2 13%
Unknown 3 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 09 April 2014.
All research outputs
#8,114,540
of 25,774,185 outputs
Outputs from Wound Repair & Regeneration
#411
of 1,108 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#54,195
of 176,990 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Wound Repair & Regeneration
#6
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,774,185 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,108 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% 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 176,990 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 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 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 58% of its contemporaries.