↓ Skip to main content

Electromagnetic therapy for 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
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (78th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
5 tweeters
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
112 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
Electromagnetic therapy for treating pressure ulcers
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd002930.pub6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Zoriah Aziz, Sally EM Bell-Syer

Abstract

Pressure ulcers are defined as areas "of localized damage to the skin and underlying tissue caused by pressure, shear, friction and/or the combination of these". Electromagnetic therapy (EMT), in which electrodes produce an electromagnetic field across the wound, may improve healing of chronic wounds such as pressure ulcers. To assess the effects of EMT on the healing of pressure ulcers. For this update we searched the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (searched 10 June 2015); The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2015, Issue 6); Ovid MEDLINE (2014 to 10 June 2015); Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, 10 June 2015); Ovid EMBASE (2014 to 10 June 2015); and EBSCO CINAHL (2014 to 6 July 2012). Randomised controlled trials comparing EMT with sham EMT or other (standard) treatment. For this update two review authors independently scrutinised the results of the search to identify relevant RCTs and obtained full reports of potentially eligible studies. In previous versions of the review we made attempts to obtain missing data by contacting study authors. A second review author checked data extraction and disagreements were resolved after discussion between review authors. We identified no new trials for this update.Two randomised controlled trials (RCTs), involving 60 participants, at unclear risk of bias were included in the original review. Both trials compared the use of EMT with sham EMT, although one of the trials included a third arm in which only standard therapy was applied. Neither study found a statistically significant difference in complete healing in people treated with EMT compared with those in the control group. In one trial that assessed percentage reduction in wound surface area, the difference between the two groups was reported to be statistically significant in favour of EMT. However, this result should be interpreted with caution as this is a small study and this finding may be due to chance. Additionally, the outcome, percentage reduction in wound area, is less clinically meaningful than complete healing. The results provide no strong evidence of benefit in using EMT to treat pressure ulcers. However, the possibility of a beneficial or harmful effect cannot be ruled out because there were only two included trials, both with methodological limitations and small numbers of participants. Further research is recommended.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 112 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 3 3%
United States 2 2%
Brazil 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
Colombia 1 <1%
Unknown 104 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 20 18%
Student > Master 17 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 13%
Other 11 10%
Student > Postgraduate 10 9%
Other 40 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 57 51%
Nursing and Health Professions 15 13%
Unspecified 9 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 6%
Engineering 7 6%
Other 17 15%

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 10 December 2018.
All research outputs
#2,825,542
of 13,044,081 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,333
of 10,443 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#60,534
of 280,950 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#183
of 269 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,044,081 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 78th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,443 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.6. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% 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 280,950 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 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 269 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.