↓ Skip to main content

The humanistic and economic burden of chronic wounds: a protocol for a systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Reviews, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
7 news outlets
twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
219 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
514 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
The humanistic and economic burden of chronic wounds: a protocol for a systematic review
Published in
Systematic Reviews, January 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13643-016-0400-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Krister Järbrink, Gao Ni, Henrik Sönnergren, Artur Schmidtchen, Caroline Pang, Ram Bajpai, Josip Car

Abstract

Chronic non-healing wounds present a substantial economic burden to healthcare system; significant reductions in quality of life for those affected, and precede often serious events such as limp amputations or even premature deaths. This burden is also likely to increase with a larger proportion of elderly and increasing prevalence of life-style diseases such as obesity and diabetes. Reviews of the evidence on the burden of illness associated with chronic wounds have not been comprehensive in scope and have not provided an assessment of the distribution of the health care costs across categories of resource use. This study is a systematic review of multiple databases for studies on adult patients with chronic wounds and with the primary objective to assess the impact on health-related quality of life by category of ulcers, and associated direct and indirect costs. Eligible studies will primary be empirical studies evaluating, describing or comparing measurement of quality of life and economic impact. Two reviewers will independently screen titles and abstracts and select studies involving adults with chronic wounds. These investigators will also independently extract data using a pre-designed data extraction form. Differences in applied methodologies and uncertainties will clearly be accounted for. Conservative valuations of costs and impact on health-related quality of life will be prioritised. Variations that may depend on age distribution, the categorisation of ulcer, healthcare system etc. will be described clearly. The proposed systematic review will yield a comprehensive assessment of the humanistic and economic burden of chronic wounds in an adult population. A better understanding of the humanistic and economic burden of chronic wounds is essential for policy and planning purposes, to monitor trends in disease burden and not at least in order to estimate the real-world cost-effectiveness of new treatments and therapies. PROSPERO CRD42016037496.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 514 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 514 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 78 15%
Student > Master 77 15%
Student > Bachelor 76 15%
Researcher 55 11%
Other 25 5%
Other 74 14%
Unknown 129 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 67 13%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 60 12%
Engineering 42 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 38 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 33 6%
Other 121 24%
Unknown 153 30%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 59. 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 30 January 2020.
All research outputs
#417,667
of 16,722,463 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#54
of 1,513 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#15,853
of 413,052 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#16
of 168 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,722,463 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,513 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 413,052 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 168 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.