↓ Skip to main content

Skin grafting for venous leg ulcers

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

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (74th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
56 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
149 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
Skin grafting for venous leg ulcers
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2013
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd001737.pub4
Pubmed ID
Authors

June E Jones, E Andrea Nelson, Aws Al-Hity

Abstract

Venous leg ulceration is a recurrent, chronic, disabling condition. It affects up to one in 100 people at some time in their lives. Standard treatments are simple dressings and compression bandages or stockings. Sometimes, despite treatment, ulcers remain open for months or years. Sometimes skin grafts are used to stimulate healing. These may be taken, or grown into a dressing, from the patient's own uninjured skin (autografts), or applied as a sheet of bioengineered skin grown from donor cells (allograft). Preserved skin from other animals, such as pigs, has also been used (xenografts).

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
India 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Colombia 1 <1%
Unknown 145 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 28 19%
Student > Bachelor 21 14%
Researcher 18 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 11%
Other 14 9%
Other 51 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 70 47%
Unspecified 22 15%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 13 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 3%
Other 27 18%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 13 January 2016.
All research outputs
#3,354,618
of 12,612,419 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#6,382
of 10,376 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#69,003
of 274,770 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#166
of 246 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,612,419 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,376 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.2. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% 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 274,770 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 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 246 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.