↓ Skip to main content

Measures and procedures utilized to determine the added value of microprocessor-controlled prosthetic knee joints: a systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, November 2013
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 (81st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
70 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
Measures and procedures utilized to determine the added value of microprocessor-controlled prosthetic knee joints: a systematic review
Published in
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, November 2013
DOI 10.1186/1471-2474-14-333
Pubmed ID
Authors

Patrick JR Theeven, Bea Hemmen, Peter RG Brink, Rob JEM Smeets, Henk AM Seelen

Abstract

The effectiveness of microprocessor-controlled prosthetic knee joints (MPKs) has been assessed using a variety of outcome measures in a variety of health and health-related domains. However, if the patient is to receive a prosthetic knee joint that enables him to function optimally in daily life, it is vital that the clinician has adequate information about the effects of that particular component on all aspects of persons' functioning. Especially information concerning activities and participation is of high importance, as this component of functioning closely describes the person's ability to function with the prosthesis in daily life. The present study aimed to review the outcome measures that have been utilized to assess the effects of microprocessor-controlled prosthetic knee joints (MPK), in comparison with mechanically controlled prosthetic knee joints, and aimed to classify these measures according to the components and categories of functioning defined by the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF). Subsequently, the gaps in the scientific evidence regarding the effectiveness of MPKs were determined.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 70 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 1%
Unknown 69 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 12 17%
Researcher 9 13%
Other 7 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 10%
Student > Bachelor 6 9%
Other 12 17%
Unknown 17 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 17 24%
Medicine and Dentistry 16 23%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 4%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 3%
Other 7 10%
Unknown 17 24%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 09 December 2013.
All research outputs
#893,367
of 5,036,908 outputs
Outputs from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#331
of 1,695 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#24,207
of 129,312 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#11
of 94 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 5,036,908 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,695 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% 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 129,312 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 94 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.