↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Sulodexide for treating venous leg ulcers

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 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 (86th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (52nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
14 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
29 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
111 Mendeley
Title
Sulodexide for treating venous leg ulcers
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd010694.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Bin Wu, Jing Lu, Ming Yang, Ting Xu

Abstract

Venous leg ulcers are common, chronic wounds caused by venous diseases, with a high recurrence rate and heavy disease burden. Compression therapy (bandages or stockings) is the first choice treatment for venous leg ulcers. However, when ulcers remain unhealed, medication can also be used with or without compression therapy. Sulodexide, a highly purified glycosaminoglycan (a naturally occurring molecule) has antithrombotic and profibrinolytic properties (it reduces the formation of blood clots) as well as anti-inflammatory effects. Sulodexide has been studied as a potential treatment for venous leg ulcers. To assess the efficacy and safety of sulodexide for treating venous leg ulcers. In July 2015 we searched: The Cochrane Wounds 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; Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM); China National Knowledge Infrastructure Database (CNKI); Wan Fang and VIP. We also searched clinical trials registries to identify ongoing studies, as well as references listed in relevant publications. There were no restrictions based on date of publication, language or study setting. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving people with a diagnosis of venous leg ulcers which compared sulodexide with placebo or any other drug therapy (such as pentoxifylline, flavonoids, aspirin), with or without compression therapy. We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. The authors independently selected studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We pooled data to present the risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI), or presented a narrative summary. We assessed overall evidence quality according to the GRADE approach. We included four RCTs with a total of 463 participants (aged 42 years to 93 years); one report was only available as a published abstract.Meta-analysis of three RCTs suggests an increase in the proportion of ulcers completely healed with sulodexide as an adjuvant to local treatment (including wound care and compression therapy) compared with local treatment alone (rate of complete healing with sulodexide 49.4% compared with 29.8% with local treatment alone; RR 1.66; 95% CI 1.30 to 2.12). This evidence for sulodexide increasing the rate of complete healing is low quality due to risk of bias. It is unclear whether sulodexide is associated with any increase in adverse events (4.4% with sulodexide versus 3.1% with no sulodexide; RR 1.44; 95% CI 0.48 to 4.34). The evidence for adverse events is very low quality, downgraded twice for risk of bias and once for imprecision. Sulodexide may increase the healing of venous ulcers, when used alongside local wound care, however the evidence is only low quality and the conclusion is likely to be affected by new research. It is not clear whether sulodexide is associated with adverse effects. The standard dosage, route and frequency of sulodexide reported in the trials was unclear. Further rigorous, adequately powered RCTs examining the effects of sulodexide on healing, ulcer recurrence, quality of life and costs are necessary.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 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 111 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 <1%
Unknown 110 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 20 18%
Researcher 14 13%
Student > Bachelor 10 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 9%
Student > Postgraduate 8 7%
Other 26 23%
Unknown 23 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 37 33%
Nursing and Health Professions 19 17%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 5%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 4 4%
Social Sciences 4 4%
Other 15 14%
Unknown 27 24%

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 19 November 2016.
All research outputs
#1,873,626
of 17,399,150 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,439
of 11,673 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#37,218
of 273,330 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#86
of 180 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,399,150 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,673 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% 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 273,330 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 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 180 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.