↓ Skip to main content

Wound-care teams for preventing and treating pressure ulcers

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

Mentioned by

twitter
19 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
26 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
156 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
Wound-care teams for preventing and treating pressure ulcers
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd011011.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Zena EH Moore, Joan Webster, Ray Samuriwo

Abstract

Pressure ulcers, which are localised injury to the skin or underlying tissue, or both, occur when people are unable to reposition themselves to relieve pressure on bony prominences. Pressure ulcers are often difficult to heal, painful and impact negatively on the individual's quality of life. The cost implications of pressure ulcer treatment are considerable, compounding the challenges in providing cost effective, efficient health service delivery. International guidelines suggest that to prevent and manage pressure ulcers successfully a team approach is required. Therefore, this review has been conducted to clarify the role of wound-care teams in the prevention and management of pressure ulcers. To assess the impact of wound-care teams in preventing and treating pressure ulcers in people of any age, nursed in any healthcare setting. In April 2015 we searched: 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 with respect to language, date of publication or study setting. We considered RCTs that evaluated the effect of any configuration of wound-care teams in the treatment or prevention of pressure ulcers. Two review authors independently assessed titles and, where available, abstracts of the studies identified by the search strategy for their eligibility. We obtained full versions of potentially relevant studies and two review authors independently screened these against the inclusion criteria. We identified no studies that met the inclusion criteria. We set out to evaluate the RCT evidence pertaining to the impact of wound-care teams on the prevention and management of pressure ulcers. However, no studies met the inclusion criteria. There is a lack of evidence concerning whether wound-care teams make a difference to the incidence or healing of pressure ulcers. Well-designed trials addressing important clinical, quality of life and economic outcomes are justified, based on the incidence of the problem and the high costs associated with pressure ulcer management.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 19 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 156 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 2 1%
Unknown 154 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 31 20%
Student > Master 23 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 12%
Researcher 15 10%
Student > Postgraduate 11 7%
Other 29 19%
Unknown 29 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 56 36%
Nursing and Health Professions 41 26%
Psychology 6 4%
Social Sciences 5 3%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 3 2%
Other 13 8%
Unknown 32 21%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 04 March 2019.
All research outputs
#1,481,811
of 15,130,434 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,004
of 11,111 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#31,290
of 249,895 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#135
of 266 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,130,434 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,111 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% 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 249,895 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 266 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.