↓ Skip to main content

Negative pressure wound therapy versus standard wound care in chronic diabetic foot wounds: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Overview of attention for article published in Trials, August 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
googleplus
2 Google+ users

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
191 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
Negative pressure wound therapy versus standard wound care in chronic diabetic foot wounds: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial
Published in
Trials, August 2014
DOI 10.1186/1745-6215-15-334
Pubmed ID
Authors

Dörthe Seidel, Tim Mathes, Rolf Lefering, Martin Storck, Holger Lawall, Edmund A M Neugebauer

Abstract

In August 2010, the Federal Joint Committee (G-BA) decided that negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) would not be reimbursable in German ambulatory care. This decision was based on reports from the Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG), which concluded that there is no convincing evidence in favor of NPWT. The aim of this diabetic foot study (DiaFu study) is to evaluate whether the clinical, safety and economic results of NPWT are superior to the results of standard wound treatment.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 191 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 2 1%
Unknown 189 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 31 16%
Student > Master 18 9%
Other 13 7%
Student > Postgraduate 11 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 6%
Other 35 18%
Unknown 72 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 48 25%
Nursing and Health Professions 38 20%
Unspecified 5 3%
Social Sciences 4 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 2%
Other 15 8%
Unknown 78 41%