↓ Skip to main content

Endovenous thermal ablation for healing venous ulcers and preventing recurrence

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

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
82 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
Endovenous thermal ablation for healing venous ulcers and preventing recurrence
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2013
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd009494.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Samuel N, Carradice D, Wallace T, Smith GE, Chetter IC, Samuel, Nehemiah, Carradice, Daniel, Wallace, Tom, Smith, George E, Chetter, Ian C, Nehemiah Samuel, Daniel Carradice, Tom Wallace, George E Smith, Ian C Chetter

Abstract

Venous leg ulcers represent the worst extreme within the spectrum of chronic venous disease. Affecting up to 3% of the adult population, this typically chronic, recurring condition significantly impairs quality of life, and its treatment places a heavy financial burden upon healthcare systems. The current mainstay of treatment for venous leg ulcers is compression therapy, which has been shown to enhance ulcer healing rates. Open surgery on the veins in the leg has been shown to reduce ulcer recurrence rates, but it is an unpopular option and many patients are unsuitable. The efficacy of the newer, minimally-invasive endovenous thermal techniques has been established in uncomplicated superficial venous disease, and these techniques are now beginning to be used in the management of venous ulceration, though the evidence for this treatment is currently unclear. It is hypothesised that, when used with compression, ablation may further reduce pressures in the leg veins, resulting in improved rates of healing. Furthermore, since long-term patient concordance with compression is relatively poor, it may prove more popular, effective and cost-effective to provide a single intervention to reduce recurrence, rather than life-long treatment with compression.

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 82 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 1%
Russian Federation 1 1%
Brazil 1 1%
Ecuador 1 1%
Unknown 78 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 16 20%
Other 12 15%
Student > Bachelor 11 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 12%
Researcher 8 10%
Other 25 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 50 61%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 13%
Unspecified 9 11%
Psychology 4 5%
Social Sciences 4 5%
Other 4 5%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 18 December 2017.
All research outputs
#5,866,868
of 11,373,241 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#6,845
of 9,086 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#56,462
of 153,168 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#79
of 109 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 11,373,241 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,086 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.5. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% 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 153,168 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% 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 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.