↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Dressings for superficial and partial thickness burns

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
12 tweeters
wikipedia
26 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
216 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
438 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Dressings for superficial and partial thickness burns
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2013
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd002106.pub4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jason Wasiak, Heather Cleland, Fiona Campbell, Anneliese Spinks

Abstract

An acute burn wound is a complex and evolving injury. Extensive burns produce systemic consequences, in addition to local tissue damage. Treatment of partial thickness burn wounds is directed towards promoting healing and a wide variety of dressings are currently available. Improvements in technology and advances in understanding of wound healing have driven the development of new dressings. Dressing selection should be based on their effects on healing, but ease of application and removal, dressing change requirements, cost and patient comfort should also be considered.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 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 438 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 4 <1%
Germany 3 <1%
United States 3 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Mexico 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 422 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 63 14%
Student > Bachelor 60 14%
Researcher 42 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 37 8%
Student > Postgraduate 33 8%
Other 110 25%
Unknown 93 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 183 42%
Nursing and Health Professions 29 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 17 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 17 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 11 3%
Other 65 15%
Unknown 116 26%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18. 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 24 November 2021.
All research outputs
#1,559,327
of 21,252,842 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3,657
of 12,103 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#12,974
of 174,659 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#25
of 101 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,252,842 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,103 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 28.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% 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 174,659 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 101 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.