↓ Skip to main content

Debridement for surgical wounds

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
5 tweeters
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Readers on

mendeley
81 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
Debridement for surgical wounds
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2013
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd006214.pub4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Fiona Smith, Nancy Dryburgh, Jayne Donaldson, Melloney Mitchell

Abstract

Surgical wounds that become infected are often debrided because clinicians believe that removal of this necrotic or infected tissue will expedite wound healing. There are numerous methods available but no consensus on which one is most effective for surgical wounds.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 81 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 81 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 12 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 14%
Student > Master 9 11%
Student > Bachelor 9 11%
Professor > Associate Professor 6 7%
Other 24 30%
Unknown 10 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 40 49%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 12%
Psychology 5 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 2%
Neuroscience 1 1%
Other 8 10%
Unknown 15 19%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 29 July 2020.
All research outputs
#3,687,770
of 15,606,051 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#6,089
of 11,222 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#37,243
of 170,007 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#54
of 109 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,606,051 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 76th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,222 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 23.3. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 170,007 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 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 109 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.