↓ 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 (81st percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
7 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
110 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 7 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 110 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 107 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 16 15%
Student > Master 15 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 9%
Other 10 9%
Student > Bachelor 8 7%
Other 31 28%
Unknown 20 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 43 39%
Nursing and Health Professions 15 14%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 4%
Engineering 3 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 3%
Other 20 18%
Unknown 22 20%

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 13 May 2020.
All research outputs
#3,056,704
of 17,719,454 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,677
of 11,739 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#44,397
of 238,375 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#148
of 261 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,719,454 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 11,739 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% 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 238,375 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 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 261 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.