↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Negative pressure wound therapy for treating pressure ulcers

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2015
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 (89th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
9 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
51 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
205 Mendeley
Title
Negative pressure wound therapy for treating pressure ulcers
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd011334.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jo C Dumville, Joan Webster, Debra Evans, Lucy Land

Abstract

Pressure ulcers, also known as bedsores, decubitus ulcers and pressure injuries, are localised areas of injury to the skin or the underlying tissue, or both. Negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) is a treatment option for pressure ulcers; a clear, current overview of the evidence is required to facilitate decision-making regarding its use. To assess the effects of negative pressure wound therapy for treating pressure ulcers in any care setting. For this review, we searched the following databases in May 2015: the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register; The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; The Cochrane Library); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid EMBASE; and EBSCO CINAHL. There were no restrictions based on language or date of publication. Published or unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effects of NPWT with alternative treatments or different types of NPWT in the treatment of pressure ulcers (stage II or above). Two review authors independently performed study selection, risk of bias assessment and data extraction. The review contains four studies with a total of 149 participants. Two studies compared NPWT with dressings; one study compared NPWT with a series of gel treatments and one study compared NPWT with 'moist wound healing'. One study had a 24-week follow-up period, and two had a six-week follow-up period, the follow-up time was unclear for one study. Three of the four included studies were deemed to be at a high risk of bias from one or more 'Risk of bias' domains and all evidence was deemed to be of very low quality. Only one study reported usable primary outcome data (complete wound healing), but this had only 12 participants and there were very few events (only one participant healed in the study). There was little other useful data available from the included studies on positive outcomes such as wound healing or negative outcomes such as adverse events. There is currently no rigorous RCT evidence available regarding the effects of NPWT compared with alternatives for the treatment of pressure ulcers. High uncertainty remains about the potential benefits or harms, or both, of using this treatment for pressure ulcer management.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 205 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 205 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 42 20%
Student > Bachelor 31 15%
Researcher 24 12%
Student > Postgraduate 20 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 9%
Other 30 15%
Unknown 40 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 63 31%
Nursing and Health Professions 52 25%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 8 4%
Psychology 6 3%
Social Sciences 6 3%
Other 22 11%
Unknown 48 23%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 09 January 2020.
All research outputs
#1,484,367
of 16,575,021 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3,818
of 11,536 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#25,613
of 237,898 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#94
of 235 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,575,021 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,536 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 66% 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 237,898 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 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 235 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 60% of its contemporaries.