↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Ozone therapy for treating foot ulcers in people with diabetes

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
twitter
61 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
28 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
225 Mendeley
Title
Ozone therapy for treating foot ulcers in people with diabetes
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd008474.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jian Liu, Peng Zhang, Jing Tian, Lun Li, Jun Li, Jin Hui Tian, KeHu Yang

Abstract

It has been reported that ozone therapy might be helpful in treating foot ulcers in people with diabetes mellitus (DM). To assess the effects of ozone therapy on the healing of foot ulcers in people with DM. In March 2015 we searched: The Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations), Ovid EMBASE, EBSCO CINAHL, Science Citation Index, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database and The Chinese Clinical Registry. There were no restrictions based on language, date or study setting. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared ozone therapy with sham ozone therapy or any other interventions for foot ulcers in people with DM, irrespective of publication date or language. Two reviewers independently screened all retrieved citations, selected relevant citations and extracted data. Disagreements were resolved by discussion with a third reviewer. The methodological quality of included studies and the evidence level of outcomes were assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool and the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach respectively. Data were expressed using risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes with their 95% confidence interval (95% CI). Review Manager (RevMan) software was used to analyse the data. Three studies (212 participants) were included in this review. The overall risk of bias was high for two trials and unclear for one.One trial (101 participants) compared ozone treatment with antibiotics for foot ulcers in people with DM. The study had a follow-up period of 20 days. This study showed that ozone treatment was associated with a greater reduction in ulcer area from baseline to the end of the study than treatment with antibiotics (MD -20.54 cm(2), 95% CI -20.61 to -20.47), and a shorter duration of hospitalisation (MD -8.00 days, 95% CI -14.17 to -1.83), but did not appear to affect the number of ulcers healed over 20 days (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.40). No side effects were observed in either group.The other two trials (111 participants) compared ozone treatment plus usual care with usual care for foot ulcers in people with DM. The meta-analysis results did not show evidence of a difference between groups for the outcomes of reduction of ulcer area (MD -2.11 cm(2), 95% CI -5.29 to 1.07), the number of ulcers healed (RR 1.69, 95% CI 0.90 to 3.17), adverse events (RR 2.27, 95% CI 0.48 to 10.79), or amputation rate (RR 2.73, 95%CI 0.12, 64.42). The available evidence was three small RCTs with unclear methodology, so we are unable to draw any firm conclusions regarding the effectiveness of ozone therapy for foot ulcers in people with DM.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 61 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 225 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 <1%
Unknown 224 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 34 15%
Student > Master 32 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 9%
Researcher 19 8%
Other 18 8%
Other 55 24%
Unknown 46 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 93 41%
Nursing and Health Professions 23 10%
Social Sciences 8 4%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 5 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 2%
Other 35 16%
Unknown 56 25%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 64. 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 17 August 2021.
All research outputs
#447,978
of 19,141,916 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#944
of 11,935 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#9,521
of 296,702 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#30
of 256 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 19,141,916 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,935 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 27.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 296,702 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 256 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.