↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Electromagnetic therapy for treating pressure ulcers

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
129 Mendeley
Title
Electromagnetic therapy for treating pressure ulcers
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd002930.pub6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Zoriah Aziz, Sally EM Bell-Syer

Abstract

Pressure ulcers are defined as areas "of localized damage to the skin and underlying tissue caused by pressure, shear, friction and/or the combination of these". Electromagnetic therapy (EMT), in which electrodes produce an electromagnetic field across the wound, may improve healing of chronic wounds such as pressure ulcers. To assess the effects of EMT on the healing of pressure ulcers. For this update we searched the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (searched 10 June 2015); The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2015, Issue 6); Ovid MEDLINE (2014 to 10 June 2015); Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, 10 June 2015); Ovid EMBASE (2014 to 10 June 2015); and EBSCO CINAHL (2014 to 6 July 2012). Randomised controlled trials comparing EMT with sham EMT or other (standard) treatment. For this update two review authors independently scrutinised the results of the search to identify relevant RCTs and obtained full reports of potentially eligible studies. In previous versions of the review we made attempts to obtain missing data by contacting study authors. A second review author checked data extraction and disagreements were resolved after discussion between review authors. We identified no new trials for this update.Two randomised controlled trials (RCTs), involving 60 participants, at unclear risk of bias were included in the original review. Both trials compared the use of EMT with sham EMT, although one of the trials included a third arm in which only standard therapy was applied. Neither study found a statistically significant difference in complete healing in people treated with EMT compared with those in the control group. In one trial that assessed percentage reduction in wound surface area, the difference between the two groups was reported to be statistically significant in favour of EMT. However, this result should be interpreted with caution as this is a small study and this finding may be due to chance. Additionally, the outcome, percentage reduction in wound area, is less clinically meaningful than complete healing. The results provide no strong evidence of benefit in using EMT to treat pressure ulcers. However, the possibility of a beneficial or harmful effect cannot be ruled out because there were only two included trials, both with methodological limitations and small numbers of participants. Further research is recommended.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 129 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 127 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 18 14%
Researcher 15 12%
Student > Postgraduate 13 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 10%
Student > Bachelor 12 9%
Other 36 28%
Unknown 22 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 51 40%
Nursing and Health Professions 17 13%
Social Sciences 5 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 2%
Other 20 16%
Unknown 29 22%

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 13 May 2020.
All research outputs
#4,363,404
of 17,719,454 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#6,653
of 11,739 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#70,328
of 292,335 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#192
of 263 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 75th 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 is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% 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 292,335 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 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 263 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.