| Title |
Impedance sensing device enables early detection of pressure ulcers in vivo
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Nature Communications, March 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1038/ncomms7575 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Sarah L. Swisher, Monica C. Lin, Amy Liao, Elisabeth J. Leeflang, Yasser Khan, Felippe J. Pavinatto, Kaylee Mann, Agne Naujokas, David Young, Shuvo Roy, Michael R. Harrison, Ana Claudia Arias, Vivek Subramanian, Michel M. Maharbiz |
| Abstract |
When pressure is applied to a localized area of the body for an extended time, the resulting loss of blood flow and subsequent reperfusion to the tissue causes cell death and a pressure ulcer develops. Preventing pressure ulcers is challenging because the combination of pressure and time that results in tissue damage varies widely between patients, and the underlying damage is often severe by the time a surface wound becomes visible. Currently, no method exists to detect early tissue damage and enable intervention. Here we demonstrate a flexible, electronic device that non-invasively maps pressure-induced tissue damage, even when such damage cannot be visually observed. Using impedance spectroscopy across flexible electrode arrays in vivo on a rat model, we find that impedance is robustly correlated with tissue health across multiple animals and wound types. Our results demonstrate the feasibility of an automated, non-invasive 'smart bandage' for early detection of pressure ulcers. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | 17% |
| Mayotte | 1 | 17% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 17% |
| United States | 1 | 17% |
| Unknown | 2 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 67% |
| Scientists | 1 | 17% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 17% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 359 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 4 | 1% |
| France | 2 | <1% |
| Germany | 1 | <1% |
| Belgium | 1 | <1% |
| Taiwan | 1 | <1% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| Korea, Republic of | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 348 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 80 | 22% |
| Student > Master | 60 | 17% |
| Researcher | 37 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 20 | 6% |
| Professor | 20 | 6% |
| Other | 73 | 20% |
| Unknown | 69 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Engineering | 153 | 43% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 19 | 5% |
| Materials Science | 19 | 5% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 15 | 4% |
| Chemistry | 11 | 3% |
| Other | 52 | 14% |
| Unknown | 90 | 25% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 222. 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 February 2021.
All research outputs
#168,812
of 25,026,088 outputs
Outputs from Nature Communications
#2,382
of 55,067 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,959
of 292,656 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nature Communications
#20
of 762 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,026,088 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 55,067 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 55.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 292,656 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 762 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.