↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Endovenous thermal ablation for healing venous ulcers and preventing recurrence

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
6 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
36 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
171 Mendeley
Title
Endovenous thermal ablation for healing venous ulcers and preventing recurrence
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2013
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd009494.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nehemiah Samuel, Daniel Carradice, Tom Wallace, George E Smith, Ian C Chetter

Abstract

Venous leg ulcers represent the worst extreme within the spectrum of chronic venous disease. Affecting up to 3% of the adult population, this typically chronic, recurring condition significantly impairs quality of life, and its treatment places a heavy financial burden upon healthcare systems. The current mainstay of treatment for venous leg ulcers is compression therapy, which has been shown to enhance ulcer healing rates. Open surgery on the veins in the leg has been shown to reduce ulcer recurrence rates, but it is an unpopular option and many patients are unsuitable. The efficacy of the newer, minimally-invasive endovenous thermal techniques has been established in uncomplicated superficial venous disease, and these techniques are now beginning to be used in the management of venous ulceration, though the evidence for this treatment is currently unclear. It is hypothesised that, when used with compression, ablation may further reduce pressures in the leg veins, resulting in improved rates of healing. Furthermore, since long-term patient concordance with compression is relatively poor, it may prove more popular, effective and cost-effective to provide a single intervention to reduce recurrence, rather than life-long treatment with compression.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 171 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 <1%
Ecuador 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 168 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 31 18%
Student > Bachelor 22 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 10%
Other 16 9%
Student > Postgraduate 15 9%
Other 40 23%
Unknown 30 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 85 50%
Nursing and Health Professions 22 13%
Social Sciences 8 5%
Psychology 6 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 2%
Other 12 7%
Unknown 35 20%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 26 June 2020.
All research outputs
#4,334,518
of 18,038,980 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#6,519
of 11,809 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#40,029
of 180,247 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#57
of 111 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 18,038,980 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,809 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.4. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% 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 180,247 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 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 111 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.