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 |
Role of magnetic resonance imaging versus ultrasound for detection of plantar plate tear
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research, January 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13018-016-0507-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Xin Duan, Lang Li, Dai-Qing Wei, Ming Liu, Xi Yu, Zhao Xu, Ye Long, Zhou Xiang |
| Abstract |
Plantar plate tears could be the reason of forefoot pain, affecting foot function. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and ultrasound (US) were commonly used for the diagnosis of plantar plate tears. The decision of whether to use MRI or US carried some controversy. Our study aimed to find out the diagnostic accuracy of MRI versus US for plantar plate tears. The database of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PubMed, EMBASE, and relative orthopedic meetings until May 2016 were searched. Studies involved in the diagnostic detection of MRI or ultrasound for plantar plate tears with surgical criteria as the reference test were included. Data was analyzed by meta-analysis. We compared sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, and summary receiver operating characteristic (sROC) plot of both MRI and US. Seven studies involving 246 plantar plate tears were included. The MRI showed more diagnostic accuracy than US for the detection of plantar plate tears. The sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, and negative likelihood ratio of MRI were 95%, 54%, 2.08, and 0.08, respectively, while the same values for US were 93%, 33%, 1.20, and 0.35, respectively. And the sROC showed more superior diagnostic accuracy than the US. The current result suggests that MRI has better accuracy than US for detection of plantar plate tears. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 54 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 54 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 15% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 8 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 11% |
| Other | 6 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 9% |
| Other | 13 | 24% |
| Unknown | 8 | 15% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 33 | 61% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 10 | 19% |
| Engineering | 2 | 4% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 8 | 15% |
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 30 June 2020.
All research outputs
#14,811,849
of 24,825,035 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research
#504
of 1,566 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#222,261
of 428,418 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research
#12
of 31 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,825,035 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,566 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% 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 428,418 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 31 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its contemporaries.