↓ Skip to main content

Subjective and objective outcome in congenital clubfoot; a comparative study of 204 children

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, June 2007
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
61 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
Subjective and objective outcome in congenital clubfoot; a comparative study of 204 children
Published in
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, June 2007
DOI 10.1186/1471-2474-8-53
Pubmed ID
Authors

David Chesney, Simon Barker, Nicola Maffulli

Abstract

Outcome following management of congenital talipes equinovarus (clubfoot) can be assessed in a number of ways. Bjonness stated simply that "the patient is the final judge of whether he has a good foot"; a purely subjective assessment. Others have employed objective measures. Combining subjective evaluation with a more objective assessment of movement and position of the foot, is likely to give a more comprehensive picture of the final result of clubfoot. The purpose of this study was to compare subjective and objective outcome following management of clubfoot, and evaluate sex differences in outcome.

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 61 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 2 3%
Brazil 1 2%
Unknown 58 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 16 26%
Other 8 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 13%
Researcher 7 11%
Student > Master 6 10%
Other 10 16%
Unknown 6 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 31 51%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 8%
Psychology 3 5%
Engineering 3 5%
Other 6 10%
Unknown 8 13%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 30 December 2012.
All research outputs
#14,741,936
of 22,691,736 outputs
Outputs from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#2,285
of 4,027 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#58,649
of 68,348 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#8
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,691,736 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,027 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% 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 68,348 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.