The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 18 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Effects of low-power light therapy on wound healing: LASER x LED
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Anais Brasileiros de Dermatologia, July 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1590/abd1806-4841.20142519 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Maria Emília de Abreu Chaves, Angélica Rodrigues de Araújo, André Costa Cruz Piancastelli, Marcos Pinotti |
| Abstract |
Several studies demonstrate the benefits of low-power light therapy on wound healing. However, the use of LED as a therapeutic resource remains controversial. There are questions regarding the equality or not of biological effects promoted by LED and LASER. One objective of this review was to determine the biological effects that support the use of LED on wound healing. Another objective was to identify LED´s parameters for the treatment of wounds. The biological effects and parameters of LED will be compared to those of LASER. Literature was obtained from online databases such as Medline, PubMed, Science Direct and Scielo. The search was restricted to studies published in English and Portuguese from 1992 to 2012. Sixty-eight studies in vitro and in animals were analyzed. LED and LASER promote similar biological effects, such as decrease of inflammatory cells, increased fibroblast proliferation, stimulation of angiogenesis, granulation tissue formation and increased synthesis of collagen. The irradiation parameters are also similar between LED and LASER. The biological effects are dependent on irradiation parameters, mainly wavelength and dose. This review elucidates the importance of defining parameters for the use of light devices. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 11% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 11% |
| India | 1 | 6% |
| Nigeria | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 12 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 13 | 72% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 17% |
| Scientists | 2 | 11% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 299 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Japan | 1 | <1% |
| Israel | 1 | <1% |
| Germany | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 296 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 43 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 43 | 14% |
| Researcher | 29 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 27 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 21 | 7% |
| Other | 52 | 17% |
| Unknown | 84 | 28% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 75 | 25% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 25 | 8% |
| Engineering | 22 | 7% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 17 | 6% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 16 | 5% |
| Other | 45 | 15% |
| Unknown | 99 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 111. 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 09 July 2024.
All research outputs
#397,169
of 26,315,660 outputs
Outputs from Anais Brasileiros de Dermatologia
#14
of 1,044 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#3,244
of 243,384 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Anais Brasileiros de Dermatologia
#1
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,315,660 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,044 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 243,384 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.