↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Dressings and topical agents for preventing pressure ulcers

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2013
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 (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
54 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
54 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
147 Mendeley
Title
Dressings and topical agents for preventing pressure ulcers
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2013
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd009362.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Zena EH Moore, Joan Webster

Abstract

Pressure ulcers, which are localised injury to the skin, or underlying tissue or both, occur when people are unable to reposition themselves to relieve pressure on bony prominences. Pressure ulcers are often difficult to heal, painful and impact negatively on the individual's quality of life. The cost implications of pressure ulcer treatment are considerable, compounding the challenges in providing cost effective, efficient health services. Efforts to prevent the development of pressure ulcers have focused on nutritional support, pressure redistributing devices, turning regimes and the application of various topical agents and dressings designed to maintain healthy skin, relieve pressure and prevent shearing forces. Although products aimed at preventing pressure ulcers are widely used, it remains unclear which, if any, of these approaches are effective in preventing the development of pressure ulcers.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 54 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 147 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Colombia 2 1%
Spain 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Peru 1 <1%
Unknown 142 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 24 16%
Student > Master 22 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 10%
Researcher 14 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 12 8%
Other 39 27%
Unknown 21 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 55 37%
Nursing and Health Professions 34 23%
Social Sciences 7 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 3%
Psychology 4 3%
Other 16 11%
Unknown 26 18%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 33. 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 November 2016.
All research outputs
#637,566
of 15,456,048 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,760
of 11,188 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#7,721
of 162,054 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#14
of 122 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,456,048 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 11,188 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 23.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% 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 162,054 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 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 122 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.