↓ Skip to main content

First-Line Interactive Wound Dressing Update: A Comprehensive Review of the Evidence

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Pharmacology, February 2020
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
144 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
302 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
First-Line Interactive Wound Dressing Update: A Comprehensive Review of the Evidence
Published in
Frontiers in Pharmacology, February 2020
DOI 10.3389/fphar.2020.00155
Pubmed ID
Authors

Carolina D. Weller, Victoria Team, Geoffrey Sussman

Abstract

Wound management is a significant and growing issue worldwide. Knowledge of dressing products and clinical expertise in dressing selection are two major components in holistic wound management to ensure evidence-based wound care. With expanding global market of dressing products, there is need to update clinician knowledge of dressing properties in wound care. Optimal wound management depends on accurate patient assessment, wound diagnosis, clinicians' knowledge of the wound healing process and properties of wound dressings. We conducted a comprehensive review of the physical properties of wound dressing products, including the advantages and disadvantages, indications and contraindications and effectiveness of first-line interactive/bioactive dressing groups commonly used in clinical practice. These include semipermeable films, foams, hydroactives, alginates, hydrofibers, hydrocolloids, and hydrogels. In making decisions regarding dressing product selection, clinicians need to ensure a holistic assessment of patient and wound etiology, and understand dressing properties when making clinical decisions using wound management guidelines to ensure optimal patient outcomes. This review has highlighted there is lack of high quality evidence and the need for future well designed trials.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 302 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 302 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 45 15%
Student > Master 28 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 26 9%
Researcher 17 6%
Other 12 4%
Other 25 8%
Unknown 149 49%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 24 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 20 7%
Medicine and Dentistry 20 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 18 6%
Engineering 17 6%
Other 41 14%
Unknown 162 54%
Attention Score in Context

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 05 April 2020.
All research outputs
#20,608,970
of 23,197,711 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Pharmacology
#10,413
of 16,617 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#305,064
of 359,239 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Pharmacology
#352
of 527 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,197,711 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 16,617 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.0. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 359,239 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 527 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.