↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Dressings and topical agents for arterial leg ulcers

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

1 policy source
3 X users
2 Facebook pages


15 Dimensions

Readers on

116 Mendeley
Dressings and topical agents for arterial leg ulcers
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd001836.pub3
Pubmed ID

Rachel Forster, Fania Pagnamenta


It is estimated that people in industrialised countries have a 1% chance of suffering from a leg ulcer at some time in their life. The majority of leg ulcers are associated with circulation problems; poor blood return in the veins causes venous ulcers (around 70% of ulcers) and poor blood supply to the legs causes arterial ulcers (around 22% of ulcers). Treatment of arterial leg ulcers is directed towards correcting the poor arterial blood supply, for example by correcting arterial blockages (either surgically or pharmaceutically). If the blood supply has been restored, these arterial ulcers can heal following principles of good wound care. Dressings and topical agents make up a part of good wound care for arterial ulcers but there are many products available and it is unclear what impact these have on ulcer healing. This is an update of a review first published in 2003. To determine whether topical agents and wound dressings affect healing in arterial ulcers. To compare healing rates, patient-centred outcomes and costs between wound dressings and topical agents. For this update the Cochrane Peripheral Vascular Diseases Group Trials Search Co-ordinator searched the Specialised Register (last searched November 2014) and The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library) (2014, Issue 10). Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), or controlled clinical trials (CCTs) evaluating dressings and topical agents in the treatment of arterial leg ulcers were eligible for inclusion. The participants had to have ulcers that were described as arterial, and the time to healing, proportion completely healed, or rate of reduction in ulcer area had to be reported. All wound dressings and topical agents were eligible for inclusion in this review. The two review authors independently extracted information on the participants' characteristics, the interventions, and outcomes using a standardised data extraction form. Disagreements between the review authors were resolved through discussion. One trial met the inclusion criteria, which was a small trial that compared 2% ketanserin ointment in polyethylene glycol (PEG) with vehicle alone (PEG) control, changed twice a day in 40 participants with arterial leg ulcers. The overall quality of the evidence was low with a single small included study which showed inadequate reporting of the results and had too short a follow-up time (eight weeks) to be able to capture sufficient healing events to allow comparisons to be made. In addition, the study was of low methodological quality. The majority of the 'risk of bias' domains received an 'unclear' risk rating as very little information was provided in the text on the methods of the study. The trial demonstrated increased wound healing in the ketanserin group, compared with the control group, but the trial was too small and had too short a follow-up period (eight weeks) to be able to determine whether there was any difference in healing rates. It should also be noted that ketanserin is not licensed in all countries for use in humans. There is insufficient evidence to determine whether the choice of topical agent or dressing affects the healing of arterial leg ulcers.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 116 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 116 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 30 26%
Student > Bachelor 25 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 10%
Student > Postgraduate 9 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 5%
Other 15 13%
Unknown 19 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 46 40%
Nursing and Health Professions 25 22%
Business, Management and Accounting 4 3%
Engineering 4 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 3%
Other 13 11%
Unknown 20 17%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 22 May 2018.
All research outputs
of 25,385,864 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 12,869 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 272,477 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 283 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,385,864 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,869 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 36.2. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% 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 272,477 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 283 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.