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 |
Regenerate bone stimulation following limb lengthening: a meta-analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, September 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12891-016-1259-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Julio J. Jauregui, Anthony V. Ventimiglia, Preston W. Grieco, David B. Frumberg, John E. Herzenberg |
| Abstract |
Limb lengthening with external fixation is performed to treat patients with leg length discrepancy or short stature. Although the procedure has a high rate of success, one potential drawback from limb lengthening is the amount of time spent in the fixation device while regenerate bone consolidates. Although some studies have assessed different treatment modalities, there has not been a study that has systematically evaluated whether low intensity pulsed ultrasound (LIPUS) or pulsed electromagnetic fields (PEMF) have significant effects on regenerate bone growth. The purpose of this study was to evaluate these two non-pharmacological treatment options to stimulate regenerate bone, and to assess whether they affect the treatment time in limb lengthening. Utilizing the electronic databases Medline, Embase and Ovid, we performed a literature search for studies describing the application of LIPUS or PEMF following limb lengthening. With the aid of a statistical software package, Forest-Plots were generated to compare the differences in bone healing index with and without the use of regenerate bone stimulation. A total of 7 studies assessed these two bone stimulation modalities in a cohort of 153 patients. Overall, the mean healing index was 11.7 days/cm faster when using bone stimulation that in the comparison cohorts (33.7 vs 45.4 day, standardized mean difference of 1.16; p = 0.003). Amongst the drawbacks from limb lengthening is the relatively high rate of non- and delayed-union. Several methods, both pharmacological and non-pharmacological, have been investigated for their potential to stimulate the growth of regenerate bone. After systematically evaluating the limited and heterogeneous current literature, we found that LIPUS and PEMF both decreased the time for bone healing (healing index in days/cm) of the newly formed regenerate bone in an adequately selected cohort of patients that underwent limb lengthening. However, a high number of complications should be noted, which could be attributed to the lengthening procedure or to the additional bone stimulation. CRD42016039024. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 36 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 8 | 22% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 8% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 8% |
| Other | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 7 | 19% |
| Unknown | 8 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 18 | 50% |
| Engineering | 4 | 11% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 6% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 3% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 10 | 28% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 07 January 2024.
All research outputs
#13,390,039
of 23,103,436 outputs
Outputs from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#1,866
of 4,111 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#167,618
of 323,389 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#48
of 78 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,103,436 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,111 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% 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 323,389 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 78 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.