↓ Skip to main content

Rationale and design of the INNOVATE Trial: an international cooperative study on surgical versus conservative treatment for odontoid fractures in the elderly

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, January 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

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

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
72 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
Rationale and design of the INNOVATE Trial: an international cooperative study on surgical versus conservative treatment for odontoid fractures in the elderly
Published in
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, January 2014
DOI 10.1186/1471-2474-15-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jeroen GJ Huybregts, Wilco CH Jacobs, Wilco C Peul, Carmen LA Vleggeert-Lankamp

Abstract

Fractures of the odontoid process of the axis are the most common fractures of the geriatric cervical spine. As the population ages, their incidence is expected to increase progressively, as is the number of very old patients (>80 years) with an odontoid fracture. No consensus exists on the optimal treatment (surgical or conservative) and the most relevant outcome parameter (osseous union, fracture stability or clinical outcome). The aim of the INNOVATE (INterNational study on Odontoid frActure Treatment in the Elderly) Trial is to prospectively assess fracture healing and clinical outcome after surgical and conservative treatment for odontoid fractures in the elderly patient, with a specific focus on the very old patient.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 72 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
Brazil 1 1%
Unknown 70 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 11 15%
Other 9 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 13%
Student > Master 8 11%
Student > Bachelor 5 7%
Other 15 21%
Unknown 15 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 32 44%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 6%
Engineering 3 4%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 3%
Design 2 3%
Other 6 8%
Unknown 23 32%
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 19 May 2014.
All research outputs
#14,186,260
of 22,738,543 outputs
Outputs from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#2,115
of 4,032 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#173,000
of 304,743 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#46
of 90 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,738,543 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,032 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 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% 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 304,743 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 90 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.