↓ Skip to main content
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 (90th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
guideline
2 clinical guideline sources

Readers on

mendeley
41 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
Comparative effectiveness of mechanically and electrically powered negative pressure wound therapy devices: A multicenter randomized controlled trial
Published in
Wound Repair & Regeneration, May 2012
DOI 10.1111/j.1524-475x.2012.00780.x
Pubmed ID
Authors

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.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 41 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 %
Unknown 41 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 4 10%
Student > Master 4 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 7%
Researcher 3 7%
Other 2 5%
Other 3 7%
Unknown 22 54%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 29%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 10%
Social Sciences 2 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 2%
Design 1 2%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 21 51%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 28 April 2025.
All research outputs
#3,507,992
of 34,410,798 outputs
Outputs from Wound Repair & Regeneration
#121
of 1,349 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#20,050
of 212,774 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Wound Repair & Regeneration
#4
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,410,798 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,349 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 212,774 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 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.