↓ Skip to main content

Ozone therapy for treating foot ulcers in people with diabetes

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (89th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
twitter
56 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
175 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
Ozone therapy for treating foot ulcers in people with diabetes
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd008474.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jian Liu, Peng Zhang, Jing Tian, Lun Li, Jun Li, Jin Hui Tian, KeHu Yang

Abstract

It has been reported that ozone therapy might be helpful in treating foot ulcers in people with diabetes mellitus (DM). To assess the effects of ozone therapy on the healing of foot ulcers in people with DM. In March 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, EBSCO CINAHL, Science Citation Index, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database and The Chinese Clinical Registry. There were no restrictions based on language, date or study setting. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared ozone therapy with sham ozone therapy or any other interventions for foot ulcers in people with DM, irrespective of publication date or language. Two reviewers independently screened all retrieved citations, selected relevant citations and extracted data. Disagreements were resolved by discussion with a third reviewer. The methodological quality of included studies and the evidence level of outcomes were assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool and the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach respectively. Data were expressed using risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes with their 95% confidence interval (95% CI). Review Manager (RevMan) software was used to analyse the data. Three studies (212 participants) were included in this review. The overall risk of bias was high for two trials and unclear for one.One trial (101 participants) compared ozone treatment with antibiotics for foot ulcers in people with DM. The study had a follow-up period of 20 days. This study showed that ozone treatment was associated with a greater reduction in ulcer area from baseline to the end of the study than treatment with antibiotics (MD -20.54 cm(2), 95% CI -20.61 to -20.47), and a shorter duration of hospitalisation (MD -8.00 days, 95% CI -14.17 to -1.83), but did not appear to affect the number of ulcers healed over 20 days (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.40). No side effects were observed in either group.The other two trials (111 participants) compared ozone treatment plus usual care with usual care for foot ulcers in people with DM. The meta-analysis results did not show evidence of a difference between groups for the outcomes of reduction of ulcer area (MD -2.11 cm(2), 95% CI -5.29 to 1.07), the number of ulcers healed (RR 1.69, 95% CI 0.90 to 3.17), adverse events (RR 2.27, 95% CI 0.48 to 10.79), or amputation rate (RR 2.73, 95%CI 0.12, 64.42). The available evidence was three small RCTs with unclear methodology, so we are unable to draw any firm conclusions regarding the effectiveness of ozone therapy for foot ulcers in people with DM.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 56 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 175 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 <1%
Unknown 174 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 32 18%
Student > Master 26 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 9%
Researcher 15 9%
Other 15 9%
Other 44 25%
Unknown 27 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 78 45%
Nursing and Health Professions 18 10%
Social Sciences 5 3%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 5 3%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 4 2%
Other 28 16%
Unknown 37 21%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 61. 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 06 November 2019.
All research outputs
#358,235
of 15,555,501 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#842
of 11,214 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#9,533
of 286,594 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#28
of 259 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,555,501 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,214 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 23.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 286,594 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 259 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.