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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
A systematic review of undisplaced femoral neck fracture treatments for patients over 65 years of age, with a focus on union rates and avascular necrosis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research, February 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13018-017-0528-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Dan-Feng Xu, Fang-Gang Bi, Chi-Yuan Ma, Zheng-Fa Wen, Xun-Zi Cai |
| Abstract |
It remains unclear whether conservative treatment should be used to treat the common undisplaced femoral neck fractures that develop in the elderly. Herein, we systematically review the rates of union and avascular necrosis after conservative and surgical treatment of undisplaced femoral neck fractures. We searched the EMBASE, PubMed, OVID, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Scopus databases for randomized controlled trials or observational studies that assessed the outcomes of conservative or surgical treatments of undisplaced femoral neck fractures. No language or publication year limitation was imposed. Statistical analyses were performed with the aid of the chi-squared test. We evaluated the quality of each publication and the risk of bias. Twenty-nine studies involving 5071 patients were ultimately included; 1120 patients were treated conservatively and 3951 surgically. The union rates were 68.8% (642/933) and 92.6% (635/686) in the former and latter groups, respectively (p < 0.001). The avascular necrosis rate in the conservatively treated group was 10.3% (39/380), while it was 7.7% (159/2074) in the surgically treated group (p = 0.09). Surgery to treat undisplaced femoral neck fractures was associated with a higher union rate and a tendency toward less avascular necrosis than conservative treatment. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 127 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 127 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 14 | 11% |
| Researcher | 12 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 11 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 11 | 9% |
| Other | 10 | 8% |
| Other | 16 | 13% |
| Unknown | 53 | 42% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 51 | 40% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 8 | 6% |
| Engineering | 6 | 5% |
| Chemistry | 2 | 2% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 6 | 5% |
| Unknown | 53 | 42% |
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 15 February 2017.
All research outputs
#18,531,724
of 22,953,506 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research
#959
of 1,391 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#312,077
of 422,694 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research
#16
of 36 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,953,506 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,391 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.6. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% 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 422,694 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 36 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.