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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Protocol for a systematic review of autologous fat grafting for wound healing
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Systematic Reviews, July 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13643-018-0769-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Joshua Luck, Oliver J. Smith, Dean Malik, Afshin Mosahebi |
| Abstract |
Autologous fat grafting is an emerging therapeutic option for cutaneous wounds. The regenerative potential of autologous fat relates to the presence of adipose-derived stem cells (ADSCs) within the stromal vascular fraction (SVF). ADSCs are capable of differentiating into fibroblasts and keratinocytes, as well as secreting soluble mediators with angiogenic and anti-inflammatory properties. However, to date, there has been no comprehensive assessment of the wound healing literature in humans. This systematic review aims to critically evaluate the efficacy and safety of autologous fat grafting in acute and chronic cutaneous wounds with an appraisal of the quality of evidence available. Following PRISMA guidelines, MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane Library databases will be searched from inception to December 2017. All primary clinical studies in which wounds are treated with lipotransfer, cell-assisted lipotransfer (CAL), SVF products or isolated ADSCs will be eligible for inclusion. Study screening and data extraction will be conducted by two authors in duplicate. Our primary outcome measure will be the proportion of completely healed wounds at 12 weeks. Secondary outcome measures will include the proportion of partially healed wounds at 12 weeks; the mean wound surface area reduction at 12 weeks; the mean time to wound healing; and adverse event rates. The quality of evidence for each summary outcome measure will be assessed using the GRADE approach. In light of the growing popularity of autologous fat grafting for wound healing, a systematic appraisal of the available evidence is timely. If autologous fat grafting is associated with a positive treatment effect, we will compare these outcomes to those achieved using alternative wound management strategies. This review also aims to determine if one or more autologous fat grafting techniques are superior and whether this varies according to patient- and wound-specific factors. We anticipate that these results will guide future research and inform clinical practice. PROSPERO CRD42017081499. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 60 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 60 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 5 | 8% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 5 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 8% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 7% |
| Other | 10 | 17% |
| Unknown | 26 | 43% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 16 | 27% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 4 | 7% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 5% |
| Neuroscience | 2 | 3% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 4 | 7% |
| Unknown | 29 | 48% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 18 October 2018.
All research outputs
#4,047,338
of 23,096,849 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#806
of 2,010 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#77,854
of 329,174 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#33
of 49 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,096,849 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,010 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% 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 329,174 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 49 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.