↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Electromagnetic therapy for treating venous leg ulcers

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 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 (80th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
6 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
4 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
130 Mendeley
Title
Electromagnetic therapy for treating venous leg ulcers
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd002933.pub6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Zoriah Aziz, Nicky Cullum

Abstract

Leg ulceration is a common, chronic, recurring condition. The estimated prevalence of leg ulcers in the UK population is 1.5 to 3 per 1000. Venous ulcers (also called stasis or varicose ulcers) comprise 80% to 85% of all leg ulcers. Electromagnetic therapy (EMT) is sometimes used as a treatment to assist the healing of chronic wounds such as venous leg ulcers. To assess the effects of EMT on the healing of venous leg ulcers. For this fourth update, we searched The Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (searched 30 January 2015); The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2014, Issue 12). Randomised controlled trials comparing EMT with sham-EMT or other treatments. Standard Cochrane Collaboration methods were employed. At least two review authors independently scrutinised search results and obtained full reports of potentially eligible studies for further assessment. We extracted and summarised details of eligible studies using a data extraction sheet, and made attempts to obtain missing data by contacting study authors. A second review author checked data extraction, and we resolved disagreements after discussion between review authors. Three randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of low or unclear risk of bias, involving 94 people, were included in the original review; subsequent updates have identified no new trials. All the trials compared the use of EMT with sham-EMT. Meta-analysis of these trials was not possible due to heterogeneity. In the two trials that reported healing rates; one small trial (44 participants) reported that significantly more ulcers healed in the EMT group than the sham-EMT group however this result was not robust to different assumptions about the outcomes of participants who were lost to follow up. The second trial that reported numbers of ulcers healed found no significant difference in healing. The third trial was also small (31 participants) and reported significantly greater reductions in ulcer size in the EMT group however this result may have been influenced by differences in the prognostic profiles of the treatment groups. It is not clear whether electromagnetic therapy influences the rate of healing of venous leg ulcers. Further research would be needed to answer this question.

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 130 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 127 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 20 15%
Researcher 18 14%
Other 11 8%
Student > Bachelor 10 8%
Student > Postgraduate 9 7%
Other 34 26%
Unknown 28 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 51 39%
Nursing and Health Professions 15 12%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 2%
Engineering 3 2%
Other 23 18%
Unknown 31 24%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 11 February 2021.
All research outputs
#3,744,232
of 20,815,952 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#6,303
of 12,066 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#48,199
of 244,295 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#157
of 258 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 20,815,952 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,066 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 28.4. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% 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 244,295 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 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 258 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.