↓ Skip to main content

Foam dressings for venous leg ulcers

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 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 (85th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (67th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
6 tweeters
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
53 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
165 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
Foam dressings for venous leg ulcers
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2013
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd009907.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Susan O'Meara, Marrissa Martyn-St James

Abstract

Venous leg ulcers are a common and recurring type of chronic or complex wound that are associated with considerable cost to patients and to healthcare providers. Primary wound contact dressings are usually applied beneath compression devices with the aim of aiding healing. Foam dressings are used frequently, and a variety of foam products is available on the market. The evidence base to guide dressing choice, however, is sparse. 

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 165 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 163 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 35 21%
Student > Bachelor 25 15%
Researcher 19 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 12 7%
Other 32 19%
Unknown 23 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 59 36%
Nursing and Health Professions 34 21%
Psychology 8 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 5%
Social Sciences 4 2%
Other 27 16%
Unknown 25 15%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 25 June 2020.
All research outputs
#2,140,926
of 15,909,178 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,864
of 11,323 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#22,522
of 157,830 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#42
of 129 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,909,178 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,323 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 23.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% 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 157,830 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 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 129 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 67% of its contemporaries.