↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Negative pressure wound therapy for treating surgical wounds healing by secondary intention

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

Mentioned by

twitter
10 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
63 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
139 Mendeley
Title
Negative pressure wound therapy for treating surgical wounds healing by secondary intention
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd011278.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jo C Dumville, Gemma L Owens, Emma J Crosbie, Frank Peinemann, Zhenmi Liu

Abstract

Following surgery, incisions are usually closed by fixing the edges together with sutures (stitches), staples, adhesive glue or clips. This process helps the cut edges heal together and is called 'healing by primary intention'. However, not all incised wounds are closed in this way: where there is high risk of infection, or when there has been significant tissue loss, wounds may be left open to heal from the 'bottom up'. This delayed healing is known as 'healing by secondary intention'. Negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) is one treatment option for surgical wounds that are healing by secondary intention. To assess the effects of negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) on the healing of surgical wounds healing by secondary intention (SWHSI) in any care setting. For this review, in May 2015 we searched the following databases: the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register; The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials; 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 Published or unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effects of NPWT with alternative treatments or different types of NPWT in the treatment of SWHSI. We excluded open abdominal wounds from this review as they are the subject of a separate Cochrane review that is in draft. Two review authors independently performed study selection, risk of bias assessment and data extraction. We located two studies (69 participants) for inclusion in this review. One study compared NPWT with an alginate dressing in the treatment of open, infected groin wounds. and one study compared NPWT with a silicone dressing in the treatment of excised pilonidal sinus. The trials reported limited outcome data on healing, adverse events and resource use. There is currently no rigorous RCT evidence available regarding the clinical effectiveness of NPWT in the treatment of surgical wounds healing by secondary intention as defined in this review. The potential benefits and harms of using this treatment for this wound type remain largely uncertain.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 139 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Argentina 1 <1%
Unknown 138 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 23 17%
Student > Postgraduate 20 14%
Researcher 17 12%
Student > Bachelor 16 12%
Other 10 7%
Other 22 16%
Unknown 31 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 59 42%
Nursing and Health Professions 19 14%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 4%
Social Sciences 3 2%
Engineering 2 1%
Other 12 9%
Unknown 39 28%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 02 July 2020.
All research outputs
#2,403,402
of 18,090,383 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,095
of 11,818 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#37,904
of 243,741 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#132
of 249 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 18,090,383 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,818 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% 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 243,741 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 249 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.