↓ Skip to main content

Alginate dressings for treating pressure ulcers

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
15 tweeters
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
38 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
136 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
Alginate dressings for treating pressure ulcers
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd011277.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jo C Dumville, Samantha J Keogh, Zhenmi Liu, Nikki Stubbs, Rachel M Walker, Mathew Fortnam

Abstract

Pressure ulcers, also known as bedsores, decubitus ulcers and pressure injuries, are localised areas of injury to the skin or the underlying tissue, or both. Dressings are widely used to treat pressure ulcers and there are many options to choose from including alginate dressings. A clear and current overview of current evidence is required to facilitate decision-making regarding dressing use for the treatment of pressure ulcers. This review is part of a suite of Cochrane reviews investigating the use of dressings in the treatment of pressure ulcers. Each review will focus on a particular dressing type. To assess the effects of alginate dressings for treating pressure ulcers in any care setting. For this review, in April 2015 we searched the following databases the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register; The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid EMBASE; and EBSCO CINAHL. There were no restrictions based on language or date of publication. Published or unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effects of alginate with alternative wound dressings or no dressing in the treatment of pressure ulcers (stage II or above). Two review authors independently performed study selection, risk of bias assessment and data extraction. We included six studies (336 participants) in this review; all studies had two arms. The included studies compared alginate dressings with six other interventions that included: hydrocolloid dressings, silver containing alginate dressings, and radiant heat therapy. Each of the six comparisons included just one study and these had limited participant numbers and short follow-up times. All the evidence was of low or very low quality. Where data were available there was no evidence of a difference between alginate dressings and alternative treatments in terms of complete wound healing or adverse events. The relative effects of alginate dressings compared with alternative treatments are unclear. The existing trials are small, of short duration and at risk of bias. Decision makers may wish to consider aspects such as cost of dressings and the wound management properties offered by each dressing type, for example, exudate management.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 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 136 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 136 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 27 20%
Researcher 22 16%
Student > Bachelor 20 15%
Student > Postgraduate 11 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 8%
Other 28 21%
Unknown 17 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 37 27%
Medicine and Dentistry 37 27%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 4%
Social Sciences 4 3%
Other 21 15%
Unknown 26 19%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 20. 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 28 March 2018.
All research outputs
#1,028,568
of 15,641,217 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,856
of 11,229 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#19,307
of 236,807 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#82
of 245 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,641,217 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,229 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 23.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% 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 236,807 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 245 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 66% of its contemporaries.