↓ Skip to main content

A 'test and treat' strategy for elevated wound protease activity for healing in venous leg ulcers

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
67 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
A 'test and treat' strategy for elevated wound protease activity for healing in venous leg ulcers
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd011753.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gill Norman, Maggie J Westby, Nikki Stubbs, Jo C Dumville, Nicky Cullum

Abstract

Venous leg ulcers are a common and recurring type of complex wound. They can be painful, malodorous, prone to infection and slow to heal. Standard treatment includes compression therapy and a dressing. The use of protease-modulating treatments for venous leg ulcers is increasing. These treatments are based on some evidence that a proportion of slow to heal ulcers have elevated protease activity in the wound. Point-of-care tests which aim to detect elevated protease activity are now available. A 'test and treat' strategy involves testing for elevated proteases and then using protease-modulating treatments in ulcers which show elevated protease levels. To determine the effects on venous leg ulcer healing of a 'test and treat' strategy involving detection of high levels of wound protease activity and treatment with protease-modulating therapies, compared with alternative treatment strategies such as using the same treatment for all participants or using a different method of treatment selection. We searched the following electronic databases to identify reports of relevant randomised clinical trials: The Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (January 2016), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library) Issue 12, 2015); Ovid MEDLINE (1946 to January 2016); Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations January 2016); Ovid EMBASE (1974 to January 2016); EBSCO CINAHL (1937 to January 2016). We also searched three clinical trials registers, reference lists and the websites of regulatory agencies. There were no restrictions with respect to language, date of publication or study setting. Published or unpublished RCTs which assessed a test and treat strategy for elevated protease activity in venous leg ulcers in adults compared with an alternative treatment strategy. The test and treat strategy needed to be the only systematic difference between the groups. Two review authors independently performed study selection; we planned that two authors would also assess risk of bias and extract data. We did not identify any studies which met the inclusion criteria for this review. We identified one ongoing study; it was unclear whether this would be eligible for inclusion. Currently there is no randomised evidence on the impact of a test and treat policy for protease levels on outcomes in people with venous leg ulcers.

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 67 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 67 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 1 1%
Unknown 66 99%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 1 1%
Unknown 66 99%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 20 April 2016.
All research outputs
#3,504,402
of 12,612,419 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#6,631
of 10,376 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#97,905
of 354,403 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#152
of 211 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,612,419 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,376 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.2. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% 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 354,403 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 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 211 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.