↓ Skip to main content

Extracorporeal shock wave therapy for the healing and management of venous leg ulcers

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
114 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
Extracorporeal shock wave therapy for the healing and management of venous leg ulcers
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2018
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd011842.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ben Cooper, Paul Bachoo

Abstract

Leg ulcers are chronic wounds of the lower leg, caused by poor blood flow, that can take a long time to heal. The pooling of blood in the veins can damage the skin and surrounding tissues, causing an ulcer to form. Venous leg ulcers are associated with impaired quality of life, reduced mobility, pain, stress and loss of dignity. The standard treatment for venous leg ulcers is compression bandages or stockings. Shock wave therapy may aid the healing of these wounds through the promotion of angiogenesis (the formation and development of blood vessels) and reduction of inflammation, though this process is poorly understood at present. To assess the effects of extracorporeal shock wave therapy on the healing and management of venous leg ulceration. In April 2018 we searched the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE (including In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid Embase and EBSCO CINAHL Plus. We also searched clinical trials registries for ongoing and unpublished studies, and scanned reference lists of relevant included studies as well as reviews, meta-analyses and health technology reports to identify additional studies. We applied no restrictions with respect to language, date of publication or study setting. We considered all published and unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effectiveness of extracorporeal shock wave therapy in the healing and management of venous leg ulceration. Two review authors independently performed study selection. We planned that two review authors would also assess the risk of bias of included studies, extract study data and rate the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. We found no RCTs that met the inclusion criteria for this review. We found no RCTs assessing the effectiveness of extracorporeal shock wave therapy in the healing and management of venous leg ulceration. The lack of high-quality evidence in this area highlights a gap in research and may serve to justify the need for further research and evidence to provide guidance concerning the use of this treatment option for this condition. Future trials should be of clear design and include concomitant use of the current best practice treatment, multilayer compression therapy. Recruitment should aspire to best represent patients seen in clinical practice and patient-related outcome measures should be included in study design.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 114 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 114 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 24 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 15%
Student > Bachelor 14 12%
Researcher 13 11%
Student > Postgraduate 5 4%
Other 15 13%
Unknown 26 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 35 31%
Nursing and Health Professions 22 19%
Social Sciences 5 4%
Psychology 5 4%
Sports and Recreations 4 4%
Other 15 13%
Unknown 28 25%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 03 July 2019.
All research outputs
#3,740,453
of 15,371,078 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#6,258
of 11,170 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#82,882
of 278,797 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#125
of 176 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,371,078 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,170 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 23.0. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% 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 278,797 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 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 176 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.