↓ Skip to main content

Healing rates in diabetes-related foot ulcers using low frequency ultrasonic debridement versus non-surgical sharps debridement: a randomised controlled trial

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Research Notes, October 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (64th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
93 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
Healing rates in diabetes-related foot ulcers using low frequency ultrasonic debridement versus non-surgical sharps debridement: a randomised controlled trial
Published in
BMC Research Notes, October 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13104-018-3841-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

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

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 93 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 93 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 12 13%
Student > Master 6 6%
Other 5 5%
Researcher 5 5%
Lecturer 4 4%
Other 13 14%
Unknown 48 52%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 17 18%
Medicine and Dentistry 15 16%
Psychology 2 2%
Engineering 2 2%
Social Sciences 2 2%
Other 7 8%
Unknown 48 52%
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 19 October 2018.
All research outputs
#13,553,449
of 23,108,064 outputs
Outputs from BMC Research Notes
#1,684
of 4,288 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#174,001
of 348,433 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Research Notes
#41
of 116 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,108,064 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,288 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% 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 348,433 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 116 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 64% of its contemporaries.