↓ Skip to main content

Wearable Technology for Chronic Wound Monitoring: Current Dressings, Advancements, and Future Prospects

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology, April 2018
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 (92nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
53 X users

Readers on

mendeley
376 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
Wearable Technology for Chronic Wound Monitoring: Current Dressings, Advancements, and Future Prospects
Published in
Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology, April 2018
DOI 10.3389/fbioe.2018.00047
Pubmed ID
Authors

Matthew S. Brown, Brandon Ashley, Ahyeon Koh

Abstract

Chronic non-healing wounds challenge tissue regeneration and impair infection regulation for patients afflicted with this condition. Next generation wound care technology capable of in situ physiological surveillance which can diagnose wound parameters, treat various chronic wound symptoms, and reduce infection at the wound noninvasively with the use of a closed loop therapeutic system would provide patients with an improved standard of care and an accelerated wound repair mechanism. The indicating biomarkers specific to chronic wounds include blood pressure, temperature, oxygen, pH, lactate, glucose, interleukin-6 (IL-6), and infection status. A wound monitoring device would help decrease prolonged hospitalization, multiple doctors' visits, and the expensive lab testing associated with the diagnosis and treatment of chronic wounds. A device capable of monitoring the wound status and stimulating the healing process is highly desirable. In this review, we discuss the impaired physiological states of chronic wounds and explain the current treatment methods. Specifically, we focus on improvements in materials, platforms, fabrication methods for wearable devices, and quantitative analysis of various biomarkers vital to wound healing progress.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 53 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 376 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 376 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 53 14%
Student > Master 53 14%
Researcher 50 13%
Student > Bachelor 42 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 13 3%
Other 42 11%
Unknown 123 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 63 17%
Materials Science 30 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 25 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 17 5%
Chemistry 17 5%
Other 76 20%
Unknown 148 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 35. 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 January 2024.
All research outputs
#1,156,871
of 25,630,321 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology
#95
of 8,635 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#25,005
of 340,553 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology
#2
of 52 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,630,321 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,635 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 340,553 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 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 52 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.