↓ Skip to main content

Wound Dressings: Selecting the Most Appropriate Type

Overview of attention for article published in American Journal of Clinical Dermatology, September 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (86th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
1 X user
patent
1 patent
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
540 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
Wound Dressings: Selecting the Most Appropriate Type
Published in
American Journal of Clinical Dermatology, September 2013
DOI 10.1007/s40257-013-0046-4
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Appropriate wound dressing selection is guided by an understanding of wound dressing properties and an ability to match the level of drainage and depth of a wound. Wounds should be assessed for necrosis and infection, which need to be addressed prior to selecting an ideal dressing. Moisture-retentive dressings include films, hydrogels, hydrocolloids, foams, alginates, and hydrofibers and are useful in a variety of clinical settings. Antimicrobial-impregnated dressings can be useful in wounds that are superficially infected or are at higher risk for infection. For refractory wounds that need more growth stimulation, tissue-engineered dressings have become a viable option in the past few decades, especially those that have been approved for burns, venous ulcers, and diabetic ulcers. As wounds heal, the ideal dressing type may change, depending on the amount of exudate and depth of the wound; thus success in wound dressing selection hinges on recognition of the changing healing environment.

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 profile of 1 X user 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 540 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 %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 539 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 61 11%
Student > Master 57 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 38 7%
Researcher 37 7%
Student > Postgraduate 25 5%
Other 63 12%
Unknown 259 48%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 77 14%
Engineering 29 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 28 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 26 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 26 5%
Other 76 14%
Unknown 278 51%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 17 March 2022.
All research outputs
#4,014,646
of 31,660,612 outputs
Outputs from American Journal of Clinical Dermatology
#348
of 1,273 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#30,827
of 235,904 outputs
Outputs of similar age from American Journal of Clinical Dermatology
#2
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 31,660,612 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,273 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% 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 235,904 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 8 of them.