↓ Skip to main content

Repositioning for treating pressure ulcers

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (89th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
45 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
29 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
Repositioning for treating pressure ulcers
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2012
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd006898.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Moore ZE, Cowman S, Moore ZEH; Cowman S

Abstract

Pressure, from lying or sitting on a particular part of the body results in reduced oxygen and nutrient supply, impaired drainage of waste products and damage to cells. If a patient with an existing pressure ulcer continues to lie or bear weight on the affected area, the tissues become depleted of blood flow and there is no oxygen or nutrient supply to the wound, and no removal of waste products from the wound, all of which are necessary for healing. Patients who cannot reposition themselves require assistance. International best practice advocates the use of repositioning as an integral component of a pressure ulcer management strategy. This review has been conducted to clarify the role of repositioning in the management of patients with pressure ulcers.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 45 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Indonesia 2 7%
United States 1 3%
Austria 1 3%
Canada 1 3%
Unknown 24 83%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 6 21%
Student > Master 5 17%
Student > Postgraduate 3 10%
Researcher 3 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 10%
Other 9 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 59%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 17%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 7%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 3%
Social Sciences 1 3%
Other 2 7%
Unknown 1 3%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 39. 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 13 November 2014.
All research outputs
#424,356
of 13,272,696 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,295
of 10,546 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#3,752
of 146,138 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#11
of 100 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,272,696 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,546 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% 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 146,138 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 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 100 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.