↓ Skip to main content

Topical negative pressure for treating chronic wounds

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

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Readers on

mendeley
79 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
Topical negative pressure for treating chronic wounds
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd001898.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Debra Evans, Lucy Land, Jo C Dumville

Abstract

Chronic wounds mainly affect the elderly and those with multiple health problems. Despite the use of modern dressings, some of these wounds take a long time to heal, fail to heal, or recur, causing significant pain and discomfort to the person and cost to health services. Topical negative pressure (TNP) is used to promote healing of surgical wounds by using suction to drain excess fluid from wounds. To assess the effects of TNP on chronic wound healing. For this second update of this review we searched the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (December 2007), The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) - The Cochrane Library Issue 4, 2007, Ovid MEDLINE - 1950 to November Week 2 2007, Ovid EMBASE - 1982 to 2007 Week 50 and Ovid CINAHL - 1980 to December Week 1 2007. In addition, we contacted authors, companies, manufacturers, and distributors to identify relevant trials and information. All randomised controlled trials which evaluated the effects of TNP on people with chronic wounds. Selection of the trials, quality assessment, data abstraction, and data synthesis were done by two authors independently. Disagreements were solved by discussion. Two trials were included in the original review. A further five trials were included in this second update resulting in a total of seven trials involving 205 participants.The seven trials compared TNP with five different comparator treatments. Four trials compared TNP with gauze soaked in either 0.9% saline or Ringer's solution. The other three trials compared TNP with hydrocolloid gel plus gauze, a treatment package comprising papain-urea topical treatment, and cadexomer iodine or hydrocolloid, hydrogels, alginate and foam. These data do not show that TNP significantly increases the healing rate of chronic wounds compared with comparators.Data on secondary outcomes such as infection rate, quality of life, oedema, hospitalisation and bacterial load were not reported. Trials comparing TNP with alternative treatments for chronic wounds have methodological flaws and data do demonstrate a beneficial effect of TNP on wound healing however more, better quality research is needed.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 79 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
Spain 1 1%
Canada 1 1%
Unknown 76 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 17 22%
Researcher 15 19%
Other 9 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 9%
Student > Bachelor 6 8%
Other 17 22%
Unknown 8 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 40 51%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 14%
Engineering 3 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Other 10 13%
Unknown 11 14%

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 04 July 2018.
All research outputs
#10,075,973
of 13,183,063 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#9,377
of 10,510 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#209,964
of 336,877 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#165
of 187 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,183,063 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,510 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 9th percentile – i.e., 9% 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 336,877 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 187 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.