↓ Skip to main content

ECAMulticapa: Effectiveness of double-layered compression therapy for healing venous ulcers in primary care: a Study Protocol

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Nursing, October 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
105 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
ECAMulticapa: Effectiveness of double-layered compression therapy for healing venous ulcers in primary care: a Study Protocol
Published in
BMC Nursing, October 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12912-016-0179-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Carmen Folguera-Álvarez, Sofia Garrido-Elustondo, José Verdú-Soriano, Diana García-García-Alcalá, Mónica Sánchez-Hernández, Oscar German Torres-de Castro, Maria Luisa Barceló-Fidalgo, Olga Martínez-González, Lidia Ardiaca-Burgués, Carmen Solano-Villarrubia, Pilar Raquel Lebracón-Cortés, Carmen Molins-Santos, Mar Fresno-Flores, Maria Carmen Cánovas-Lago, Luisa Fernanda Benito-Herranz, Maria Teresa García-Sánchez, Olga Castillo-Pla, María Sol Morcillo-San Juan, Maria Begoña Ayuso-de la Torre, Pilar Burgos-Quintana, Ana López-Torres-Escudero, Gema Ballesteros-García, Piedad García-Cabeza, Maria Ángeles de Francisco-Casado, Milagros Rico-Blázquez, ECAMulticapa Group

Abstract

Chronic venous insufficiency, in its final stage can cause venous ulcers. Venous ulcers have a prevalence of 0.5 % to 0.8 % in the general population, and increases starting at 60 years of age. This condition often causes increased dependency in affected individuals, as well as a perceived reduced quality of life and family overload. Local Treating chronic venous ulcers has 2 components: topically healing the ulcer and controlling the venous insufficiency. There is evidence that compressive therapy favours the healing process of venous ulcers. The studies we have found suggest that the use of multilayer bandage systems is more effective than the use of bandages with a single component, these are mostly using in Spain. Multilayer compression bandages with 2 layers are equally effective in the healing process of chronic venous ulcers as 4-layer bandages and are better tolerated and preferenced by patients. More studies are needed to specifically compare the 2-layer bandages systems in the settings where these patients are usually treated. Randomised, controlled, parallel, multicentre clinical trial, with 12 weeks of follow-up and blind evaluation of the response variable. The objective is to assess the efficacy of multilayer compression bandages (2 layers) compared with crepe bandages, based on the incidence of healed venous ulcers in individuals treated in primary care nursing consultations, at 12 weeks of follow-up. The study will include 216 individuals (108 per branch) with venous ulcers treated in primary care nursing consultations. The primary endpoint is complete healing at 12 weeks of follow-up. The secondary endpoints are the degree of healing (Resvech.2), quality of life (CCVUQ-e), adverse reactions related to the healing process. Prognosis and demographic variables are also recorder. Effectiveness analysis using Kaplan-Meier curves, a log-rank test and a Cox regression analysis. The analysis was performed by intention to treat. The study results can contribute to improving the care and quality of life of patients with venous ulcers, decreasing healing times and healthcare expenditure and contributing to the consistent treatment of these lesions. This study has been recorded in the Clinical Trials.gov site with the code NCT02364921. 17 February 2015.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 105 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 <1%
Unknown 104 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 17 16%
Student > Bachelor 15 14%
Other 10 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 8%
Student > Postgraduate 6 6%
Other 15 14%
Unknown 34 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 33 31%
Medicine and Dentistry 25 24%
Social Sciences 3 3%
Sports and Recreations 2 2%
Materials Science 2 2%
Other 6 6%
Unknown 34 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 28 November 2016.
All research outputs
#12,907,063
of 22,893,031 outputs
Outputs from BMC Nursing
#295
of 753 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#158,610
of 319,855 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Nursing
#7
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,893,031 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 753 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% 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 319,855 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.