↓ Skip to main content

Protease-modulating matrix treatments for healing venous leg 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 (87th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (58th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
15 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Readers on

mendeley
138 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
Protease-modulating matrix treatments for healing venous leg ulcers
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd011918.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Maggie J Westby, Gill Norman, Jo C Dumville, Nikki Stubbs, Nicky Cullum

Abstract

Venous leg ulcers (VLUs) are open skin wounds on the lower leg that occur because of poor blood flow in the veins of the leg; leg ulcers can last from weeks to years, and are both painful and costly. Prevalence in the UK is about 2.9 cases per 10,000 people. First-line treatment for VLUs is compression therapy, but around 60% of people have unhealed ulcers after 12 weeks' treatment and about 40% after 24 weeks; therefore, there is scope for further improvement. Limited evidence suggests non-healing leg ulcers may have persisting elevated levels of proteases, which is thought to deter the later stages of healing; thus, timely protease-modulating matrix (PMM) treatments may improve healing by physically removing proteases from the wound fluid. To determine the effects of protease-modulating matrix (PMM) treatments on the healing of venous leg ulcers, in people managed in any care setting. In September 2016 we searched: the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register; CENTRAL; Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid Embase and EBSCO CINAHL Plus. We also searched clinical trials registries for ongoing and unpublished studies, and scanned reference lists of relevant included studies as well as reviews, meta-analyses and health technology reports to identify additional studies. There were no restrictions with respect to language, date of publication or study setting. We searched for published or unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated PMM treatments for VLUs. We defined PMM treatments as those with a purposeful intent of reducing proteases. Wound healing was the primary endpoint. Two review authors independently performed study selection, risk of bias assessment and data extraction. We included 12 studies (784 participants) in this review; sample sizes ranged from 10 to 187 participants (median 56.5). One study had three arms that were all relevant to this review and all the other studies had two arms. One study was a within-participant comparison. All studies were industry funded. Two studies provided unpublished data for healing.Nine of the included studies compared PMM treatments with other treatments and reported results for the primary outcomes. All treatments were dressings. All studies also gave the participants compression bandaging. Seven of these studies were in participants described as having 'non-responsive' or 'hard-to-heal' ulcers. Results, reported at short, medium and long durations and as time-to-event data, are summarised for the comparison of any dressing regimen incorporating PMM versus any other dressing regimen. The majority of the evidence was of low or very low certainty, and was mainly downgraded for risk of bias and imprecision.It is uncertain whether PMM dressing regimens heal VLUs quicker than non-PMM dressing regimens (low-certainty evidence from 1 trial with 100 participants) (HR 1.21, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.97).In the short term (four to eight weeks) it is unclear whether there is a difference between PMM dressing regimens and non-PMM dressing regimens in the probability of healing (very low-certainty evidence, 2 trials involving 207 participants).In the medium term (12 weeks), it is unclear whether PMM dressing regimens increase the probability of healing compared with non-PMM dressing regimens (low-certainty evidence from 4 trials with 192 participants) (RR 1.28, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.71). Over the longer term (6 months), it is also unclear whether there is a difference between PMM dressing regimens and non-PMM dressing regimens in the probability of healing (low certainty evidence, 1 trial, 100 participants) (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.41).It is uncertain whether there is a difference in adverse events between PMM dressing regimens and non-PMM dressing regimens (low-certainty evidence from 5 trials, 363 participants) (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.42). It is also unclear whether resource use is lower for PMM dressing regimens (low-certainty evidence, 1 trial involving 73 participants), or whether mean total costs in a German healthcare setting are different (low-certainty evidence, 1 trial in 187 participants). One cost-effectiveness analysis was not included because effectiveness was not based on complete healing. The evidence is generally of low certainty, particularly because of risk of bias and imprecision of effects. Within these limitations, we are unclear whether PMM dressing regimens influence venous ulcer healing relative to dressing regimens without PMM activity. It is also unclear whether there is a difference in rates of adverse events between PMM and non-PMM treatments. It is uncertain whether either resource use (products and staff time) or total costs associated with PMM dressing regimens are different from those for non-PMM dressing regimens. More research is needed to clarify the impact of PMM treatments on venous ulcer healing.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 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 138 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 138 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 20 14%
Researcher 18 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 12%
Student > Bachelor 14 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 7%
Other 31 22%
Unknown 30 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 37 27%
Nursing and Health Professions 15 11%
Social Sciences 9 7%
Psychology 6 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 4%
Other 28 20%
Unknown 38 28%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 04 July 2020.
All research outputs
#1,431,058
of 15,575,554 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3,794
of 11,219 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#47,399
of 384,254 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#64
of 154 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,575,554 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,219 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 23.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% 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 384,254 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 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 154 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 58% of its contemporaries.