↓ Skip to main content

Active topical therapy by “Furuta method” for effective pressure ulcer treatment: a retrospective study

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Pharmaceutical Health Care and Sciences, July 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
25 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
Active topical therapy by “Furuta method” for effective pressure ulcer treatment: a retrospective study
Published in
Journal of Pharmaceutical Health Care and Sciences, July 2015
DOI 10.1186/s40780-015-0021-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Katsunori Furuta, Fumihiro Mizokami, Hitoshi Sasaki, Masato Yasuhara

Abstract

We newly proposed that "Furuta method," a pharmacist intervention guidelines, is a topical ointment therapy that considers the physical properties and moist environment of wounds for pressure ulcer (PU) treatment. The aim of this multicenter retrospective study was to investigate the effectiveness of this method for PU. A total of 888 consecutive patients who underwent treatment for PU at 37 hospitals and five dispensing pharmacies in Japan between August 2010 and July 2014 were included in the study. Based on a survey on compliance to "Furuta method," single-blind allocation was conducted into compliance (n = 437) and non-compliance (n = 451) groups, followed by a retrospective data collection. The primary and secondary outcomes were the healing period and rates of unhealed wounds, respectively. Data was expressed as mean ± standard deviation. Two-sided log rank tests were used for between-group comparisons of PU progression, whereas Kaplan-Meier plots were used for comparison between groups. We performed rigorous adjustment for marked differences in baseline patient characteristics by propensity score (PS) matching. After PS matching, patients were categorized as DESIGN-R d2 (n = 202), D3 (n = 130), D4 and 5 (n = 76), and DU (n = 76). In terms of the healing period, the patients in the compliance groups healed faster than those in the non-compliance groups in d2 (23.6 ± 36.8 vs. 32.2 ± 16.6 days; P < 0.001), D3 (46.8 ± 245.5 vs.137.3 ± 52.7 days; P < 0.001), and D4, 5 (122.5 ± 225.7 vs. 258.2 ± 292.7 days; P < 0.001). There were significantly lesser events of PU progression in the compliance group than in the non-compliance group (15 vs. 54; P = 0.003). "Furuta method" is the new therapeutic strategy of PU, a pharmacist intervention guidelines, may possibly increase healing rates of PUs.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 25 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 4%
Unknown 24 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 20%
Student > Master 3 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 12%
Student > Postgraduate 2 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 8%
Other 2 8%
Unknown 8 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 4 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 12%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 12%
Psychology 2 8%
Computer Science 1 4%
Other 4 16%
Unknown 8 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 17 February 2023.
All research outputs
#15,736,296
of 23,377,816 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Pharmaceutical Health Care and Sciences
#69
of 150 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#155,453
of 263,729 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Pharmaceutical Health Care and Sciences
#2
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,377,816 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 150 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.5. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% 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 263,729 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.