↓ Skip to main content

Negative pressure wound therapy 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)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (63rd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
10 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
39 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
139 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
Negative pressure wound therapy for treating pressure ulcers
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd011334.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jo C Dumville, Joan Webster, Debra Evans, Lucy Land

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. Negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) is a treatment option for pressure ulcers; a clear, current overview of the evidence is required to facilitate decision-making regarding its use. To assess the effects of negative pressure wound therapy for treating pressure ulcers in any care setting. For this review, we searched the following databases in May 2015: 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 Published or unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effects of NPWT with alternative treatments or different types of NPWT in the treatment of pressure ulcers (stage II or above). Two review authors independently performed study selection, risk of bias assessment and data extraction. The review contains four studies with a total of 149 participants. Two studies compared NPWT with dressings; one study compared NPWT with a series of gel treatments and one study compared NPWT with 'moist wound healing'. One study had a 24-week follow-up period, and two had a six-week follow-up period, the follow-up time was unclear for one study. Three of the four included studies were deemed to be at a high risk of bias from one or more 'Risk of bias' domains and all evidence was deemed to be of very low quality. Only one study reported usable primary outcome data (complete wound healing), but this had only 12 participants and there were very few events (only one participant healed in the study). There was little other useful data available from the included studies on positive outcomes such as wound healing or negative outcomes such as adverse events. There is currently no rigorous RCT evidence available regarding the effects of NPWT compared with alternatives for the treatment of pressure ulcers. High uncertainty remains about the potential benefits or harms, or both, of using this treatment for pressure ulcer management.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 139 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 138 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 35 25%
Student > Bachelor 22 16%
Researcher 21 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 8%
Student > Postgraduate 10 7%
Other 18 13%
Unknown 22 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 47 34%
Nursing and Health Professions 35 25%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 3%
Social Sciences 4 3%
Other 13 9%
Unknown 31 22%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. 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 January 2020.
All research outputs
#1,015,484
of 14,259,275 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,997
of 10,933 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#21,024
of 234,967 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#85
of 233 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,259,275 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,933 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% 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 234,967 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 233 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 63% of its contemporaries.