↓ Skip to main content

Massage therapy for preventing pressure ulcers

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 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 (87th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (56th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
8 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
116 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
Massage therapy for preventing pressure ulcers
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd010518.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Qinhong Zhang, Zhongren Sun, Jinhuan Yue

Abstract

Pressure ulcers affect approximately 10% of patients in hospitals and the elderly are at highest risk. Several studies have suggested that massage therapy may help to prevent the development of pressure ulcers, but these results are inconsistent. To assess the evidence for the effects of massage compared with placebo, standard care or other interventions for prevention of pressure ulcers in at-risk populations.The review sought to answer the following questions:Does massage reduce the incidence of pressure ulcers of any grade?Is massage safe in the short- and long-term? If not, what are the adverse events associated with massage? We searched the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (8 January 2015), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2015, Issue 1), Ovid MEDLINE (1946 to 8 January 2015), Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process Other Non-Indexed Citations 8 January 2015), Ovid EMBASE (1974 to 8 January 2015), and EBSCO CINAHL (1982 to 8 January 2015). We did not apply date or language restrictions. We planned to include all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomised controlled trials (Q-RCTs) that evaluated the effects of massage therapy for the prevention of pressure ulcers. Our primary outcome was the proportion of people developing a new pressure ulcer of any grade. Two review authors independently carried out trial selection. Disagreements were resolved by discussion. No studies (RCTs or Q-RCTs) met the inclusion criteria. Therefore, neither a meta-analysis nor a narrative description of studies was possible. There are currently no studies eligible for inclusion in this review. It is, therefore, unclear whether massage therapy can prevent pressure ulcers.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 116 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 115 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 24 21%
Student > Master 24 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 11%
Researcher 8 7%
Other 7 6%
Other 20 17%
Unknown 20 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 49 42%
Nursing and Health Professions 18 16%
Psychology 4 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 3%
Social Sciences 3 3%
Other 13 11%
Unknown 25 22%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 20 August 2020.
All research outputs
#1,728,758
of 15,882,608 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,312
of 11,314 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#30,028
of 234,340 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#111
of 253 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,882,608 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,314 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 23.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% 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 234,340 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 253 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 56% of its contemporaries.