↓ 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

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
219 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.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 219 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%
Unknown 217 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 33 15%
Student > Bachelor 27 12%
Researcher 20 9%
Other 19 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 8%
Other 46 21%
Unknown 56 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 95 43%
Nursing and Health Professions 25 11%
Social Sciences 8 4%
Psychology 7 3%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 4 2%
Other 17 8%
Unknown 63 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 14 May 2019.
All research outputs
#17,604,954
of 25,806,763 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#11,621
of 13,140 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#139,951
of 221,464 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#198
of 224 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,806,763 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,140 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.9. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% 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 221,464 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 224 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.