↓ Skip to main content

Successful wound healing over exposed metal implants using vacuum‐assisted wound closure in a dog

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Small Animal Practice, April 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
67 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.
Article details
Title
Successful wound healing over exposed metal implants using vacuum‐assisted wound closure in a dog
Published in
Journal of Small Animal Practice, April 2013
DOI 10.1111/jsap.12055
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

An eight-month-old Labrador retriever was presented with a grade IIIb open shearing injury of the left tarsus. Acute severe surgical site infection developed 2 days after pan-tarsal arthrodesis, resulting in wound dehiscence. Vacuum-assisted wound therapy was carried out for 12 days to treat an extensive full-thickness soft tissue defect with exposure of metal implants. New granulation tissue formation covering most of the defect was achieved by day 10 of this therapy. Epithelialization was achieved by second intention healing with open wound management. To the authors' knowledge, this is the first veterinary clinical case report documenting complete healing over exposed metal implants without any requirement for surgical revision.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
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 demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 67 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Norway 1 1%
Unknown 66 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 15 22%
Researcher 6 9%
Lecturer 5 7%
Student > Master 5 7%
Student > Postgraduate 5 7%
Other 18 27%
Unknown 13 19%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 31%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 19 28%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 7%
Neuroscience 2 3%
Unspecified 1 1%
Other 3 4%
Unknown 16 24%
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 09 April 2013.
All research outputs
#16,013,266
of 27,276,278 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Small Animal Practice
#608
of 1,904 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#122,045
of 218,095 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Small Animal Practice
#3
of 35 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 27,276,278 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,904 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% 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 218,095 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 35 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 91% of its contemporaries.