↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Extracorporeal shock wave therapy for the healing and management of venous leg ulcers

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2018
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

blogs
1 blog
twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
3 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
206 Mendeley
Title
Extracorporeal shock wave therapy for the healing and management of venous leg ulcers
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2018
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd011842.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ben Cooper, Paul Bachoo

Abstract

Leg ulcers are chronic wounds of the lower leg, caused by poor blood flow, that can take a long time to heal. The pooling of blood in the veins can damage the skin and surrounding tissues, causing an ulcer to form. Venous leg ulcers are associated with impaired quality of life, reduced mobility, pain, stress and loss of dignity. The standard treatment for venous leg ulcers is compression bandages or stockings. Shock wave therapy may aid the healing of these wounds through the promotion of angiogenesis (the formation and development of blood vessels) and reduction of inflammation, though this process is poorly understood at present. To assess the effects of extracorporeal shock wave therapy on the healing and management of venous leg ulceration. In April 2018 we searched the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE (including In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid Embase and EBSCO CINAHL Plus. We also searched clinical trials registries for ongoing and unpublished studies, and scanned reference lists of relevant included studies as well as reviews, meta-analyses and health technology reports to identify additional studies. We applied no restrictions with respect to language, date of publication or study setting. We considered all published and unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effectiveness of extracorporeal shock wave therapy in the healing and management of venous leg ulceration. Two review authors independently performed study selection. We planned that two review authors would also assess the risk of bias of included studies, extract study data and rate the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. We found no RCTs that met the inclusion criteria for this review. We found no RCTs assessing the effectiveness of extracorporeal shock wave therapy in the healing and management of venous leg ulceration. The lack of high-quality evidence in this area highlights a gap in research and may serve to justify the need for further research and evidence to provide guidance concerning the use of this treatment option for this condition. Future trials should be of clear design and include concomitant use of the current best practice treatment, multilayer compression therapy. Recruitment should aspire to best represent patients seen in clinical practice and patient-related outcome measures should be included in study design.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 206 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 206 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 39 19%
Student > Bachelor 24 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 10%
Researcher 14 7%
Other 9 4%
Other 32 16%
Unknown 67 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 53 26%
Nursing and Health Professions 29 14%
Psychology 8 4%
Social Sciences 6 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 3%
Other 33 16%
Unknown 71 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 14 September 2022.
All research outputs
#3,234,666
of 25,508,813 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#6,006
of 13,145 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#62,075
of 341,702 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#109
of 186 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,508,813 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,145 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% 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 341,702 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 186 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.