↓ 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

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (69th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
132 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 We also searched clinical trials registries for ongoing and unpublished studies, and scanned reference lists of relevant included studies as well as reviews, meta-analyses and health technology reports to identify additional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 We considered all published and unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effectiveness of extracorporeal shock wave therapy in the healing and management of venous leg ulceration.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.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 132 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 132 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 32 24%
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 14%
Student > Bachelor 14 11%
Researcher 13 10%
Student > Postgraduate 8 6%
Other 16 12%
Unknown 31 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 40 30%
Nursing and Health Professions 21 16%
Psychology 7 5%
Social Sciences 6 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 5%
Other 20 15%
Unknown 32 24%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 15 July 2021.
All research outputs
#4,775,029
of 19,102,798 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#7,007
of 11,926 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#87,735
of 291,812 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#132
of 176 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 19,102,798 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,926 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 27.0. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% 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 291,812 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 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 176 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.