The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
| Title |
Evaluation of negative-pressure wound therapy for patients with diabetic foot ulcers: systematic review and meta-analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management, April 2017
|
| DOI | 10.2147/tcrm.s131193 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Si Liu, Chao-zhu He, Yan-ting Cai, Qiu-ping Xing, Ying-zhen Guo, Zhi-long Chen, Ji-liang Su, Li-ping Yang |
| Abstract |
The aim of this study was to perform an updated systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the clinical efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness of negative-pressure wound therapy (NPWT) in the treatment of diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs). We searched the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Ovid, and Chinese Biological Medicine databases up to June 30, 2016. We also manually searched the articles from reference lists of the retrieved articles, which used the NPWT system in studies of vacuum-assisted closure therapy. Studies were identified and selected, and two independent reviewers extracted data from the studies. A total of eleven randomized controlled trials, which included a total of 1,044 patients, were selected from 691 identified studies. Compared with standard dressing changes, NPWT had a higher rate of complete healing of ulcers (relative risk, 1.48; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.24-1.76; P<0.001), shorter healing time (mean difference, -8.07; 95% CI: -13.70- -2.45; P=0.005), greater reduction in ulcer area (mean difference, 12.18; 95% CI: 8.50-15.86; P<0.00001), greater reduction in ulcer depth (mean difference, 40.82; 95% CI: 35.97-45.67; P<0.00001), fewer amputations (relative risk, 0.31; 95% CI: 0.15-0.62; P=0.001), and no effect on the incidence of treatment-related adverse effects (relative risk, 1.12; 95% CI: 0.66-1.89; P=0.68). Meanwhile, many analyses showed that the NPWT was more cost-effective than standard dressing changes. These results indicate that NPWT is efficacious, safe, and cost-effective in treating DFUs. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | 40% |
| Unknown | 3 | 60% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 2 | 40% |
| Members of the public | 2 | 40% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 280 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 280 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 34 | 12% |
| Student > Master | 32 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 17 | 6% |
| Other | 15 | 5% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 15 | 5% |
| Other | 45 | 16% |
| Unknown | 122 | 44% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 58 | 21% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 58 | 21% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 6 | 2% |
| Engineering | 5 | 2% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 4 | 1% |
| Other | 25 | 9% |
| Unknown | 124 | 44% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 26 October 2021.
All research outputs
#3,772,095
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#186
of 1,323 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#66,099
of 323,961 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#4
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,323 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% 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 323,961 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 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.