↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Debridement for surgical wounds

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 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 (84th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (56th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 tweeters
patent
1 patent
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
27 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
92 Mendeley
Title
Debridement for surgical wounds
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2013
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd006214.pub4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Fiona Smith, Nancy Dryburgh, Jayne Donaldson, Melloney Mitchell

Abstract

Surgical wounds that become infected are often debrided because clinicians believe that removal of this necrotic or infected tissue will expedite wound healing. There are numerous methods available but no consensus on which one is most effective for surgical wounds.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 92 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 92 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 12 13%
Student > Master 12 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 12 13%
Student > Bachelor 9 10%
Student > Postgraduate 8 9%
Other 27 29%
Unknown 12 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 45 49%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 11%
Psychology 5 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 3%
Computer Science 2 2%
Other 9 10%
Unknown 18 20%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 August 2020.
All research outputs
#2,602,152
of 16,849,755 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,242
of 11,594 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#27,173
of 174,198 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#48
of 108 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,849,755 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 84th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,594 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 24.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% 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 174,198 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 108 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% of its contemporaries.