↓ Skip to main content

EUREKA study – the evaluation of real-life use of a biophotonic system in chronic wound management: an interim analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Drug Design, Development and Therapy, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (61st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
89 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
EUREKA study – the evaluation of real-life use of a biophotonic system in chronic wound management: an interim analysis
Published in
Drug Design, Development and Therapy, December 2017
DOI 10.2147/dddt.s142580
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marco Romanelli, Alberto Piaggesi, Giovanni Scapagnini, Valentina Dini, Agata Janowska, Elisabetta Iacopi, Carlotta Scarpa, Stéphane Fauverghe, Franco Bassetto

Abstract

Interest has grown regarding photobiomodulation (PBM) with low-level light therapy, which has been shown to positively affect the stages of the wound healing process. In a real-life context clinical setting, the objective of the EUREKA study was to investigate efficacy, safety, and quality of life associated with the use of a BioPhotonic gel (LumiHeal™) in the treatment of chronic wounds such as venous leg ulcers (VLUs), diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs), and pressure ulcers (PUs). This BioPhotonic gel represents a new, first-in-class emission spectrum of light, including fluorescence, to induce PBM and modulate healing. The multicenter, prospective, interventional, uncontrolled, open-label study enrolled 100 patients in 12 wound centers in Italy. We performed an early interim analysis based on the first 33 subjects (13 VLU, 17 DFU, 3 PU) in seven centers who completed the study. Seventeen patients (52%) achieved total wound closure (full re-epithelialization for 2 weeks) during the study period. Two patients (6%) were considered "almost closed" (decrease of the wound area of more than 90% at study end) and three others (9%) were considered "ready for skin grafting". No related serious adverse events were observed, and the compliance was excellent. After the treatment, the average time to "pain-free" was 11.9 days in the VLU group. Quality of life was improved with overall increase of 26.4% of the total score (Cardiff Wound Impact Schedule, p=0.001). The study revealed a positive efficacy profile of the BioPhotonic gel in promoting wound healing and reactivating the healing process in different types of chronic, hard-to-heal wounds. The treatment was shown to be safe and well tolerated by the patients, and a reduction of pain perception was also detected during the treatment period. The improvement of the quality of life was accompanied by a high level of clinician satisfaction.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 89 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 89 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 37 42%
Student > Bachelor 25 28%
Other 7 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 8%
Researcher 6 7%
Other 7 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Unspecified 39 44%
Nursing and Health Professions 28 31%
Medicine and Dentistry 9 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 9%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 2%
Other 3 3%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 12 January 2018.
All research outputs
#9,497,052
of 12,355,714 outputs
Outputs from Drug Design, Development and Therapy
#668
of 1,302 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#233,293
of 355,863 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Drug Design, Development and Therapy
#24
of 68 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,355,714 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,302 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.4. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% 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 355,863 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 68 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 61% of its contemporaries.