↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Reconstructive surgery for treating pressure ulcers

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

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
30 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
172 Mendeley
Title
Reconstructive surgery for treating pressure ulcers
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd012032.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jason Kf Wong, Kavit Amin, Jo C Dumville

Abstract

The management of pressure ulcers involves several interventions ranging from pressure-relieving measures such as repositioning, to treatments that can include reconstructive surgery. Such surgery may be considered for recalcitrant wounds when full thickness skin loss arises and deeper structures such as muscle fascia and even bone are exposed. The surgery commonly involves wound debridement followed by the addition of new tissue into the wound. Whilst reconstructive surgery is an accepted means of ulcer management, the benefits and harms of surgery compared with non-surgical treatments, or alternative surgical approaches are not clear. To assess the effects of reconstructive surgery for healing pressure ulcers (stage II or above), comparing surgery with no surgery or comparing alternative forms of surgery in any care setting. We searched the following electronic databases to identify reports of relevant randomised clinical trials (searched 26 September 2016): the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL. We also searched three clinical trials registers and reference lists of relevant systematic reviews, meta-analyses and health technology assessment reports. Published or unpublished randomised controlled trials that assessed reconstructive surgery in the treatment of pressure ulcers. Two review authors independently performed study selection. We planned that two review authors would also assess the risk of bias and extract study data. We did not identify any studies that met the review eligibility criteria nor any registered studies investigating the role of reconstructive surgery in the management of pressure ulcers. Currently there is no randomised evidence that supports or refutes the role of reconstructive surgery in pressure ulcer management. This is a priority area and there is a need to explore this intervention with more rigorous and robust research.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 172 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 <1%
Unknown 171 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 28 16%
Student > Master 27 16%
Researcher 12 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 6%
Other 26 15%
Unknown 57 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 48 28%
Nursing and Health Professions 32 19%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 3%
Social Sciences 5 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 2%
Other 16 9%
Unknown 62 36%
Attention Score in Context

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 21 March 2017.
All research outputs
#8,640,840
of 26,311,549 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#9,615
of 13,206 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#140,825
of 425,672 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#194
of 255 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,311,549 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 66th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,206 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 33.6. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% 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 425,672 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 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 255 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.