↓ Skip to main content

Hydrocolloid dressings for healing diabetic foot ulcers

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (56th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
5 X users
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
79 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
381 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
Hydrocolloid dressings for healing diabetic foot ulcers
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2013
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd009099.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jo C Dumville, Sohan Deshpande, Susan O'Meara, Katharine Speak

Abstract

Foot ulcers in people with diabetes are a prevalent and serious global health issue. Wound dressings are regarded as important components of ulcer treatment, with clinicians and patients having many different types to choose from including hydrocolloid dressings. There is a range of different hydrocolloids available including fibrous-hydrocolloid and hydrocolloid (matrix) dressings. A clear and current overview of current evidence is required to facilitate decision-making regarding dressing use.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 381 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 2 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 375 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 57 15%
Student > Bachelor 46 12%
Researcher 37 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 34 9%
Other 26 7%
Other 71 19%
Unknown 110 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 117 31%
Nursing and Health Professions 43 11%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 17 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 14 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 10 3%
Other 57 15%
Unknown 123 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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 August 2023.
All research outputs
#2,433,330
of 25,595,500 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,988
of 13,156 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#20,051
of 209,331 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#110
of 253 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,595,500 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,156 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.8. 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 209,331 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 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 253 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 56% of its contemporaries.