The present status of clinical leg ulcer healing research was reviewed by 25 experts over 2 days on September 28 and 29 2015. Multiple clinical effectiveness reviews were presented suggesting that published clinical wound healing research often does not meet present (2015) evidence based standards. Specific areas requiring remediation were highlighted and approaches to overcoming existing challenges were proposed. Participants using anonymous voting technology developed an action plan to resolve perceived deficiencies. Statements were accepted if 75% of participants agreed. Older patients with a high frequency of co-morbid conditions posed particular difficulties in designing clinical research protocols and better diagnostic categorization is necessary A standardized model template for collecting information about diagnosis and evaluation of the effect of interventions on healing of all types of leg ulcers was considered a high priority. Such a model template could be modified depending on the specific etiology of the leg ulcers. Generally agreed upon quantifiable standards to establish degree of morbidity was considered a high priority. There was universal agreement that sources of funding and conflicts of interest needed to be disclosed in presentations and all publications. All clinical research studies should be registered with appropriate authorities. There was substantial enthusiasm for a clinical research network with quality standards for membership and an advisory research core available to investigators. Such a network should be funded and actively managed to insure long-term viability. The governance of such an entity needs to be established by the wound care community. The present trend to integrate patients into the clinical research process was endorsed and there was enthusiasm to develop patient advocacy for wound healing research. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 12 August 2016.
All research outputs
#31,339,694
of 34,526,284 outputs
Outputs from Wound Repair & Regeneration
#1,243
of 1,357 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#307,217
of 342,932 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Wound Repair & Regeneration
#12
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,526,284 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,357 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.6. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 342,932 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
