↓ Skip to main content

New classification of lunate fossa fractures of the distal radius

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research, October 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
22 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
New classification of lunate fossa fractures of the distal radius
Published in
Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research, October 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13018-016-0455-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jun Zhang, Xin ran Ji, Ye Peng, Jian tao Li, Li hai Zhang, Pei fu Tang

Abstract

A die-punch fracture is a depression fracture of the lunate fossa of the distal radius. We propose a morphological classification of die-punch fractures that includes five types: center depression fractures, vertical depression fractures, volar depression fractures, dorsal depression fractures, and double die-punch fractures. The radiographs of 112 die-punch fractures treated between January 2005 and January 2015 were retrospectively reviewed. The clinical images were examined independently for two rounds by six orthopedists with different clinical experiences: two residents, two attending physicians, and two consultants. A category-specific kappa score and a kappa score for more than two observers were analyzed. We used Cohen's kappa to test intraobserver variation. The kappa score for interobserver reliability was 0.69 for the first round and 0.70 for the second round. The intraclass correlations were 0.65 and 0.63, respectively. Intraobserver reproducibility using Cohen's kappa test was satisfactory. All of the results indicated a kappa value >0.4, suggesting good agreement within, as well as between, observers. The outcome was assessed using kappa statistics, which showed good interobserver reliability and intraobserver reproducibility.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 22 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 9%
Student > Bachelor 2 9%
Researcher 2 9%
Student > Master 2 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 5%
Other 4 18%
Unknown 9 41%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 5 23%
Chemical Engineering 1 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 5%
Psychology 1 5%
Neuroscience 1 5%
Other 2 9%
Unknown 11 50%
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 21 October 2016.
All research outputs
#15,390,684
of 22,896,955 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research
#648
of 1,381 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#198,894
of 316,323 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research
#18
of 30 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,896,955 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,381 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.6. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% 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 316,323 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 30 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.