↓ Skip to main content

Pilot parallel randomised controlled trial of protective socks against usual care to reduce skin tears in high risk people: ‘STOPCUTS’

Overview of attention for article published in Pilot and Feasibility Studies, October 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (51st percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (59th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
77 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
Pilot parallel randomised controlled trial of protective socks against usual care to reduce skin tears in high risk people: ‘STOPCUTS’
Published in
Pilot and Feasibility Studies, October 2017
DOI 10.1186/s40814-017-0182-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Roy J. Powell, Christopher J. Hayward, Caroline L. Snelgrove, Kathleen Polverino, Linda Park, Rohan Chauhan, Philip H. Evans, Rachel Byford, Carolyn Charman, Christopher J. W. Foy, Colin Pritchard, Andrew Kingsley

Abstract

Skin tears are common in older adults and those taking steroids and warfarin. They are traumatic, often blunt injuries caused by oblique knocks to the extremities. The epidermis may separate from the dermis or both layers from underlying tissues leaving a skin flap or total loss of tissue, which is painful and prone to infection. 'Dermatuff™' knee-length socks containing Kevlar fibres (used in stab-proof vests and motorcyclists' clothing) aim to prevent skin tears. The acceptability of the socks and the feasibility of a randomised controlled trial (RCT) had not been explored. In this pilot parallel group RCT, 90 people at risk of skin-tear injury from Devon care homes and primary care were randomised to receive the socks or treatment as usual (TAU). The pilot aimed to estimate parameters to inform the design of a substantive trial and record professionals' views and participants' acceptability of the intervention and of study participation. Participants were randomised from July 2013 and followed up until February 2015. Community participants were easier to recruit than care homes residents but were 10 years younger on average and more active. To recruit 90 participants, 395 had to be approached overall as 77% were excluded or declined. Seventy-nine participants (88%) completed the trial and 27/44 (61%) wore the socks for 16 weeks. There were 31 skin tear injuries affecting 18 (20%) of the 90 participants. The TAU group received more injuries, more repeated episodes, and larger tears with greater severity. Common daily diary reasons for not wearing the socks included perceived warmth in hot weather or not being available (holiday, in hospital, bed rest). Resource use data were obtainable and indicated that sock wearing gave a reduction in treatment costs whilst well-completed questionnaires showed improvements in secondary outcomes. This pilot trial has successfully informed the design and conduct of a future definitive cost-effectiveness RCT. It would need to be conducted in primary care with 880 active at-risk, elderly patients (440 per arm). Skin tear incidence and quality of life (from EQ5D5L) over a 4-month period would be the primary and secondary outcomes respectively. ISRCTN, ISRCTN96565376.

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 77 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 77 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 13%
Student > Bachelor 9 12%
Unspecified 6 8%
Researcher 6 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 6%
Other 12 16%
Unknown 29 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 16 21%
Medicine and Dentistry 10 13%
Unspecified 6 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 4%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 3%
Other 10 13%
Unknown 30 39%
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 08 December 2017.
All research outputs
#13,057,517
of 23,006,268 outputs
Outputs from Pilot and Feasibility Studies
#544
of 1,045 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#154,437
of 326,544 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Pilot and Feasibility Studies
#11
of 27 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,006,268 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,045 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.9. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 326,544 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 51% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 27 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 59% of its contemporaries.