↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Article Metrics

Neuropathic diabetic foot ulcers – evidence-to-practice

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of General Medicine, February 2012
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter
video
1 video uploader

Readers on

mendeley
71 Mendeley
Title
Neuropathic diabetic foot ulcers – evidence-to-practice
Published in
International Journal of General Medicine, February 2012
DOI 10.2147/ijgm.s10328
Pubmed ID
Authors

Agbor Ako

Abstract

Foot ulcers and their attendant complications are disquietingly high in people with diabetes, a majority of whom have underlying neuropathy. This review examines the evidence base underpinning the prevention and management of neuropathic diabetic foot ulcers in order to inform best clinical practice. Since it may be impractical to ask patients not to weight-bear at all, relief of pressure through the use of offloading casting devices remains the mainstay for management of neuropathic ulcers, whilst provision of appropriate footwear is essential in ulcer prevention. Simple non-surgical debridement and application of hydrogels are both effective in preparing the wound bed for healthy granulation and therefore enhancing healing. Initial empirical antibiotic therapy for infected ulcers should cover the most common bacterial flora. There is limited evidence supporting the use of adjunctive therapies such as hyperbaric oxygen and cytokines or growth factors. In selected cases, recombinant human platelet-derived growth factor has been shown to enhance healing; however, its widespread use cannot be advised due to the availability of more cost-effective approaches. While patient education may be beneficial, the evidence base remains thin and conflicting. In conclusion, best management of foot ulcers is achieved by what is taken out of the foot (pressure, callus, infection, and slough) rather than what is put on the foot (adjuvant treatment).

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 71 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 2 3%
Spain 1 1%
South Africa 1 1%
Japan 1 1%
Canada 1 1%
Unknown 65 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 16 23%
Student > Bachelor 13 18%
Unspecified 8 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 10%
Researcher 6 8%
Other 21 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 34 48%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 15%
Unspecified 8 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 6%
Other 9 13%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 10 February 2012.
All research outputs
#4,607,744
of 6,230,503 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of General Medicine
#190
of 303 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#53,768
of 81,535 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of General Medicine
#27
of 39 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 6,230,503 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 303 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.3. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 81,535 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 39 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.