↓ Skip to main content

Burn wound healing and treatment: review and advancements

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

35 X users
3 Facebook pages
1 Redditor


586 Dimensions

Readers on

1450 Mendeley
Burn wound healing and treatment: review and advancements
Published in
Critical Care, December 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13054-015-0961-2
Pubmed ID

Matthew P. Rowan, Leopoldo C. Cancio, Eric A. Elster, David M. Burmeister, Lloyd F. Rose, Shanmugasundaram Natesan, Rodney K. Chan, Robert J. Christy, Kevin K. Chung


Burns are a prevalent and burdensome critical care problem. The priorities of specialized facilities focus on stabilizing the patient, preventing infection, and optimizing functional recovery. Research on burns has generated sustained interest over the past few decades, and several important advancements have resulted in more effective patient stabilization and decreased mortality, especially among young patients and those with burns of intermediate extent. However, for the intensivist, challenges often exist that complicate patient support and stabilization. Furthermore, burn wounds are complex and can present unique difficulties that require late intervention or life-long rehabilitation. In addition to improvements in patient stabilization and care, research in burn wound care has yielded advancements that will continue to improve functional recovery. This article reviews recent advancements in the care of burn patients with a focus on the pathophysiology and treatment of burn wounds.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 35 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 1,450 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Austria 2 <1%
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Canada 2 <1%
Zimbabwe 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
Unknown 1439 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 229 16%
Student > Master 181 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 141 10%
Researcher 123 8%
Other 87 6%
Other 242 17%
Unknown 447 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 344 24%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 116 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 87 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 83 6%
Engineering 74 5%
Other 245 17%
Unknown 501 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 23. 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 2021.
All research outputs
of 24,753,534 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
of 6,435 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 398,502 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
of 546 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,753,534 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,435 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% 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 398,502 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 546 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.