↓ Skip to main content

Evaluation of computed tomography post-processing images in postoperative assessment of Lisfranc injuries compared with plain radiographs

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research, June 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (54th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
21 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
Evaluation of computed tomography post-processing images in postoperative assessment of Lisfranc injuries compared with plain radiographs
Published in
Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research, June 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13018-017-0589-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Haobo Li, Yanxi Chen, Minfei Qiang, Kun Zhang, Yuchen Jiang, Yijie Zhang, Xiaoyang Jia

Abstract

The objective of this study is to evaluate the value of computed tomography (CT) post-processing images in postoperative assessment of Lisfranc injuries compared with plain radiographs. A total of 79 cases with closed Lisfranc injuries that were treated with conventional open reduction and internal fixation from January 2010 to June 2016 were analyzed. Postoperative assessment was performed by two independent orthopedic surgeons with both plain radiographs and CT post-processing images. Inter- and intra-observer agreement were analyzed by kappa statistics while the differences between the two postoperative imaging assessments were assessed using the χ (2) test (McNemar's test). Significance was assumed when p < 0.05. Inter- and intra-observer agreement of CT post-processing images was much higher than that of plain radiographs. Non-anatomic reduction was more easily identified in patients with injuries of Myerson classifications A, B1, B2, and C1 using CT post-processing images with overall groups (p < 0.05), and poor internal fixation was also more easily detected in patients with injuries of Myerson classifications A, B1, B2, and C2 using CT post-processing images with overall groups (p < 0.05). CT post-processing images can be more reliable than plain radiographs in the postoperative assessment of reduction and implant placement for Lisfranc injuries.

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 21 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 21 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 6 29%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 14%
Student > Master 3 14%
Professor 2 10%
Other 2 10%
Other 2 10%
Unknown 3 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 48%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 14%
Engineering 2 10%
Computer Science 1 5%
Sports and Recreations 1 5%
Other 1 5%
Unknown 3 14%
Attention Score in Context

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 June 2017.
All research outputs
#15,465,171
of 22,981,247 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research
#662
of 1,397 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#199,350
of 317,509 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research
#20
of 46 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,981,247 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,397 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.6. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% 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 317,509 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 46 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 54% of its contemporaries.