↓ Skip to main content

Retracted: Manuka honey vs. hydrogel - a prospective, open label, multicentre, randomised controlled trial to compare desloughing efficacy and healing outcomes in venous ulcers

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Clinical Nursing, August 2008
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (98th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
3 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
5 tweeters
peer_reviews
1 peer review site
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
85 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
96 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
Retracted: Manuka honey vs. hydrogel - a prospective, open label, multicentre, randomised controlled trial to compare desloughing efficacy and healing outcomes in venous ulcers
Published in
Journal of Clinical Nursing, August 2008
DOI 10.1111/j.1365-2702.2008.02558.x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Georgina Gethin, Seamus Cowman

Abstract

Comparison of desloughing efficacy after four weeks and healing outcomes after 12 weeks in sloughy venous leg ulcers treated with Manuka honey (Woundcare 18+) vs. standard hydrogel therapy (IntraSite Gel).

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 2 2%
Germany 1 1%
Brazil 1 1%
Spain 1 1%
Unknown 91 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 17 18%
Student > Master 15 16%
Researcher 13 14%
Student > Postgraduate 11 11%
Other 10 10%
Other 30 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 37 39%
Nursing and Health Professions 18 19%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 10%
Unspecified 10 10%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 4%
Other 17 18%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 37. 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 26 June 2017.
All research outputs
#380,856
of 12,350,579 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Clinical Nursing
#62
of 3,162 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,467
of 92,729 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Clinical Nursing
#1
of 51 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,350,579 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,162 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. 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 92,729 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 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 51 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 98% of its contemporaries.