↓ 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 (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (89th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
5 news outlets
twitter
56 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
43 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
307 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.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 56 X users 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 307 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 <1%
Unknown 306 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 41 13%
Student > Master 39 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 24 8%
Researcher 22 7%
Other 21 7%
Other 63 21%
Unknown 97 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 111 36%
Nursing and Health Professions 26 8%
Psychology 7 2%
Social Sciences 7 2%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 7 2%
Other 43 14%
Unknown 106 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 82. 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 January 2024.
All research outputs
#530,005
of 25,706,302 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#926
of 13,138 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#7,843
of 296,018 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#30
of 297 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,706,302 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 13,138 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 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 296,018 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 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 297 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.