↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Benzo‐pyrones for reducing and controlling lymphoedema of the limbs

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2004
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
119 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
258 Mendeley
Title
Benzo‐pyrones for reducing and controlling lymphoedema of the limbs
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2004
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd003140.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Caroline M A Badger, Nancy J Preston, Kate Seers, Peter S Mortimer

Abstract

Lymphoedema is the accumulation of excess fluid in the body caused by obstruction of the lymphatic drainage mechanisms. It can be caused by a number of factors, including congenital predisposition, parasitic infection or surgery. Lymphoedema is chronic and progressive and affects a significant proportion of the population. The standard treatment regimes include compression hosiery, skin care and exercise. The use of drugs in treatment, particularly benzo-pyrones, has gained favour over the last ten years. Benzo-pyrones, originally developed for use in vascular medicine, are prescribed to reduce vascular permeability and thus the amount of fluid forming in the subcutaneous tissues. Advocates for this treatment method believe that, as a result of reducing filtration, the drugs have some beneficial effect on pain and discomfort in the swollen areas. Proponents also claim that these drugs increase macrophage activity, encouraging the lysis of protein, which in turn reduces the formation of fibrotic tissue in the lymphoedematous limb.

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 258 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 2 <1%
Singapore 1 <1%
Russia 1 <1%
Unknown 254 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 39 15%
Researcher 27 10%
Student > Master 26 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 25 10%
Student > Postgraduate 16 6%
Other 50 19%
Unknown 75 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 95 37%
Nursing and Health Professions 32 12%
Psychology 10 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 3%
Social Sciences 5 2%
Other 29 11%
Unknown 80 31%
Attention Score in Context

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 04 December 2016.
All research outputs
#14,334,632
of 25,457,297 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#9,764
of 11,499 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#55,143
of 62,526 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#28
of 34 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,297 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 11,499 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 40.0. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% 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 62,526 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 34 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.