↓ Skip to main content

Negative pressure wound therapy for treating leg ulcers

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 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 (80th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
12 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
41 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
117 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 leg ulcers
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd011354.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jo C Dumville, Lucy Land, Debra Evans, Frank Peinemann

Abstract

Leg ulcers are open skin wounds that occur between the ankle and the knee that can last weeks, months or even years and are a consequence of arterial or venous valvular insufficiency. Negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) is a technology that is currently used widely in wound care and is promoted for use on wounds. NPWT involves the application of a wound dressing to the wound, to which a machine is attached. The machine applies a carefully controlled negative pressure (or vacuum), which sucks any wound and tissue fluid away from the treated area into a canister. To assess the effects of negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) for treating leg ulcers in any care setting. For this review, in May 2015 we searched the following databases: the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (searched 21 May 2015); the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; The Cochrane Library 2015, Issue 4); Ovid MEDLINE (1946 to 20 May 2015); Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations 20 May 2015); Ovid EMBASE (1974 to 20 May 2015); EBSCO CINAHL (1982 to 21 May 2015). There were no restrictions based on language or date of publication. Published or unpublished randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effects of NPWT with alternative treatments or different types of NPWT in the treatment of leg ulcers. Two review authors independently performed study selection, risk of bias assessment and data extraction. We included one study, with 60 randomized participants, in the review. The study population had a range of ulcer types that were venous arteriolosclerotic and venous/arterial in origin. Study participants had recalcitrant ulcers that had not healed after treatment over a six-month period. Participants allocated to NPWT received continuous negative pressure until they achieved 100% granulation (wound preparation stage). A punch skin-graft transplantation was conducted and the wound then exposed to further NPWT for four days followed by standard care. Participants allocated to the control arm received standard care with dressings and compression until 100% granulation was achieved. These participants also received a punch skin-graft transplant and then further treatment with standard care. All participants were treated as in-patients until healing occurred.There was low quality evidence of a difference in time to healing that favoured the NPWT group: the study reported an adjusted hazard ratio of 3.2, with 95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.7 to 6.2. The follow-up period of the study was a minimum of 12 months. There was no evidence of a difference in the total number of ulcers healed (29/30 in each group) over the follow-up period; this finding was also low quality evidence.There was low quality evidence of a difference in time to wound preparation for surgery that favoured NPWT (hazard ratio 2.4, 95% CI 1.2 to 4.7).Limited data on adverse events were collected: these provided low quality evidence of no difference in pain scores and Euroqol (EQ-5D) scores at eight weeks after surgery. There is limited rigorous RCT evidence available concerning the clinical effectiveness of NPWT in the treatment of leg ulcers. There is some evidence that the treatment may reduce time to healing as part of a treatment that includes a punch skin graft transplant, however, the applicability of this finding may be limited by the very specific context in which NPWT was evaluated. There is no RCT evidence on the effectiveness of NPWT as a primary treatment for leg ulcers.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 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 117 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 114 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 21 18%
Student > Bachelor 19 16%
Researcher 10 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 9%
Other 10 9%
Other 30 26%
Unknown 17 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 48 41%
Nursing and Health Professions 26 22%
Psychology 4 3%
Social Sciences 4 3%
Materials Science 3 3%
Other 14 12%
Unknown 18 15%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 16 December 2016.
All research outputs
#2,527,232
of 14,251,174 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,279
of 10,917 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#45,830
of 231,515 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#145
of 257 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,251,174 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,917 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 51% 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 231,515 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 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 257 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.