↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

A 'test and treat' strategy for elevated wound protease activity for healing in venous leg ulcers

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2016
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 (87th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

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

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
153 Mendeley
Title
A 'test and treat' strategy for elevated wound protease activity for healing in venous leg ulcers
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd011753.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gill Norman, Maggie J Westby, Nikki Stubbs, Jo C Dumville, Nicky Cullum

Abstract

Venous leg ulcers are a common and recurring type of complex wound. They can be painful, malodorous, prone to infection and slow to heal. Standard treatment includes compression therapy and a dressing. The use of protease-modulating treatments for venous leg ulcers is increasing. These treatments are based on some evidence that a proportion of slow to heal ulcers have elevated protease activity in the wound. Point-of-care tests which aim to detect elevated protease activity are now available. A 'test and treat' strategy involves testing for elevated proteases and then using protease-modulating treatments in ulcers which show elevated protease levels. To determine the effects on venous leg ulcer healing of a 'test and treat' strategy involving detection of high levels of wound protease activity and treatment with protease-modulating therapies, compared with alternative treatment strategies such as using the same treatment for all participants or using a different method of treatment selection. We searched the following electronic databases to identify reports of relevant randomised clinical trials: The Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (January 2016), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library) Issue 12, 2015); Ovid MEDLINE (1946 to January 2016); Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations January 2016); Ovid EMBASE (1974 to January 2016); EBSCO CINAHL (1937 to January 2016). We also searched three clinical trials registers, reference lists and the websites of regulatory agencies. There were no restrictions with respect to language, date of publication or study setting. Published or unpublished RCTs which assessed a test and treat strategy for elevated protease activity in venous leg ulcers in adults compared with an alternative treatment strategy. The test and treat strategy needed to be the only systematic difference between the groups. Two review authors independently performed study selection; we planned that two authors would also assess risk of bias and extract data. We did not identify any studies which met the inclusion criteria for this review. We identified one ongoing study; it was unclear whether this would be eligible for inclusion. Currently there is no randomised evidence on the impact of a test and treat policy for protease levels on outcomes in people with venous leg ulcers.

Timeline
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.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 153 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 153 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 28 18%
Student > Bachelor 20 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 8%
Researcher 9 6%
Other 9 6%
Other 26 17%
Unknown 48 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 44 29%
Nursing and Health Professions 22 14%
Social Sciences 7 5%
Psychology 5 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 3%
Other 20 13%
Unknown 51 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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
#3,243,157
of 26,106,397 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,854
of 13,186 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#51,798
of 405,576 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#136
of 266 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,106,397 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 13,186 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% 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 405,576 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 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 266 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.