↓ Skip to main content

The Role of Nutrients and Diet Characteristics in the Management of Diabetic Foot Ulcers: A Systematic Review.

Overview of attention for article published in The International Journal of Lower Extremity Wounds, February 2023
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
23 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
The Role of Nutrients and Diet Characteristics in the Management of Diabetic Foot Ulcers: A Systematic Review.
Published in
The International Journal of Lower Extremity Wounds, February 2023
DOI 10.1177/15347346231153531
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kyriaki Apergi, Charilaos Dimosthenopoulos, Nikolaos Papanas

Abstract

Diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs) are common complications of diabetes mellitus that affect patients' quality of life and pose a burden on the healthcare system. Although malnutrition and specific nutritional deficiencies can seriously impact wound healing in patients with chronic nonhealing wounds, the role of nutrition in the prevention and management of DFUs is still not clear. This review discusses the significance of frequent diet assessment and nutritional education of patients with DFUs with individualized correction of deficiencies and emphasis on adequate protein intake along with correction of vitamins D, C, E, and selenium status. Future research should clarify the impact of nutritional interventions, potentially involving the use of probiotics, zinc, and omega-3 fatty acids, and successfully translating the findings into practical guidelines for use in everyday clinical practice.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 23 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 23 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 2 9%
Other 1 4%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 4%
Librarian 1 4%
Professor 1 4%
Other 3 13%
Unknown 14 61%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 2 9%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 4%
Psychology 1 4%
Other 3 13%
Unknown 13 57%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

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 03 February 2023.
All research outputs
#15,708,506
of 23,342,232 outputs
Outputs from The International Journal of Lower Extremity Wounds
#227
of 382 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#195,928
of 377,769 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The International Journal of Lower Extremity Wounds
#1
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,342,232 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 382 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.4. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% 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 377,769 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them