↓ Skip to main content

Comparison of healing rate in diabetes-related foot ulcers with low frequency ultrasonic debridement versus non-surgical sharps debridement: a randomised trial protocol

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Foot and Ankle Research, January 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
5 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
47 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
Comparison of healing rate in diabetes-related foot ulcers with low frequency ultrasonic debridement versus non-surgical sharps debridement: a randomised trial protocol
Published in
Journal of Foot and Ankle Research, January 2014
DOI 10.1186/1757-1146-7-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lucia Michailidis, Cylie M Williams, Shan M Bergin, Terry P Haines

Abstract

Foot ulceration has been reported as the leading cause of hospital admission and amputation in individuals with diabetes. Diabetes-related foot ulcers require multidisciplinary management and best practice care, including debridement, offloading, dressings, management of infection, modified footwear and management of extrinsic factors.Ulcer debridement is a commonly applied management approach involving removal of non-viable tissue from the ulcer bed. Different methods of debridement have been reported in the literature including autolytic debridement via moist wound healing, mechanical debridement utilising wet to dry dressings, theatre based sharps debridement, biological debridement, non-surgical sharps debridement and newer technology such as low frequency ultrasonic debridement.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 47 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 47 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 8 17%
Student > Master 7 15%
Student > Bachelor 6 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 9%
Other 10 21%
Unknown 8 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 19 40%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 19%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 4%
Sports and Recreations 2 4%
Engineering 2 4%
Other 4 9%
Unknown 9 19%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 07 August 2014.
All research outputs
#1,227,566
of 5,039,474 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Foot and Ankle Research
#154
of 313 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#37,967
of 142,693 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Foot and Ankle Research
#15
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 5,039,474 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 313 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% 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 142,693 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 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 23 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.