| Title |
Comparison of efficacy of the intermittent pneumatic compression with a high- and low-pressure application in reducing the lower limbs phlebolymphedema
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management, October 2015
|
| DOI | 10.2147/tcrm.s92121 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jakub Taradaj, Joanna Rosińczuk, Robert Dymarek, Tomasz Halski, Winfried Schneider |
| Abstract |
The primary lymphedema and chronic venous insufficiency present an important medical problem, and effective physical therapeutic methods to treat this problem are still at the search phase. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of intermittent pneumatic compression (IPC) of a high- or low-pressure level in the treatment of primary phlebolymphedema of the lower limbs. The study included 81 patients with chronic venous insufficiency and primary lymphedema of the lower limbs. Group A consisted of 28 patients who underwent a monthly antiedematous therapy including a manual lymphatic drainage, multilayer bandaging, and IPC with the output pressure of 120 mmHg. Group B consisted of 27 patients who underwent the same basic treatment as group A and IPC with the output pressure of 60 mmHg. Group C (control) consisted of 26 patients who underwent only a basic treatment - without IPC. After completion of the study, it was found that the greatest reduction of edema occurred in patients who underwent treatment with a pressure of 120 mmHg. The comparison of percentage reduction of edema showed a statistically significant advantage of the group A over groups B and C, both for the changes in the right (P=0.01) and the left limb (P=0.01). Results in patients undergoing intermittent compression of the lower pressure (60 mmHg) were similar to those obtained in the control group. The IPC with the pressure of 120 mmHg inside the chambers effectively helps to reduce a phlebolymphedema. Furthermore, it appears that the treatments with a pressure of 60 mmHg are ineffective and their application becomes useless only in the antiedematous therapy. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 4 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 4 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 65 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 65 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 11 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 8 | 12% |
| Other | 5 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 8% |
| Researcher | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 10 | 15% |
| Unknown | 22 | 34% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 20 | 31% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 12 | 18% |
| Sports and Recreations | 4 | 6% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 2% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 2 | 3% |
| Unknown | 25 | 38% |
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 27 February 2018.
All research outputs
#4,623,140
of 25,584,565 outputs
Outputs from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#219
of 1,308 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#55,806
of 287,342 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#6
of 52 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,584,565 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,308 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% 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 287,342 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 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 52 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.