↓ Skip to main content

Reconstructive surgery for treating pressure ulcers

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2016
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)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (55th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
17 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
118 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
Reconstructive surgery for treating pressure ulcers
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd012032.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jason KF Wong, Kavit Amin, Jo C Dumville

Abstract

The management of pressure ulcers involves several interventions ranging from pressure-relieving measures such as repositioning, to treatments that can include reconstructive surgery. Such surgery may be considered for recalcitrant wounds when full thickness skin loss arises and deeper structures such as muscle fascia and even bone are exposed. The surgery commonly involves wound debridement followed by the addition of new tissue into the wound. Whilst reconstructive surgery is an accepted means of ulcer management, the benefits and harms of surgery compared with non-surgical treatments, or alternative surgical approaches are not clear. To assess the effects of reconstructive surgery for healing pressure ulcers (stage II or above), comparing surgery with no surgery or comparing alternative forms of surgery in any care setting. We searched the following electronic databases to identify reports of relevant randomised clinical trials (searched 26 September 2016): the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL. We also searched three clinical trials registers and reference lists of relevant systematic reviews, meta-analyses and health technology assessment reports. Published or unpublished randomised controlled trials that assessed reconstructive surgery in the treatment of pressure ulcers. Two review authors independently performed study selection. We planned that two review authors would also assess the risk of bias and extract study data. We did not identify any studies that met the review eligibility criteria nor any registered studies investigating the role of reconstructive surgery in the management of pressure ulcers. Currently there is no randomised evidence that supports or refutes the role of reconstructive surgery in pressure ulcer management. This is a priority area and there is a need to explore this intervention with more rigorous and robust research.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 17 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 118 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 <1%
Unknown 117 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 23 19%
Student > Bachelor 17 14%
Researcher 14 12%
Student > Postgraduate 12 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 8%
Other 19 16%
Unknown 23 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 43 36%
Nursing and Health Professions 27 23%
Social Sciences 6 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 3%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 2%
Other 6 5%
Unknown 30 25%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 19 June 2020.
All research outputs
#1,624,973
of 15,341,335 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,184
of 11,161 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#53,624
of 386,512 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#65
of 147 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,341,335 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 11,161 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% 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 386,512 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 147 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its contemporaries.