↓ Skip to main content

The SNAP trial: a double blind multi-center randomized controlled trial of a silicon nitride versus a PEEK cage in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in patients with symptomatic degenerative…

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

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
23 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
92 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
The SNAP trial: a double blind multi-center randomized controlled trial of a silicon nitride versus a PEEK cage in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in patients with symptomatic degenerative lumbar disc disorders: study protocol
Published in
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, February 2014
DOI 10.1186/1471-2474-15-57
Pubmed ID
Authors

Roel FMR Kersten, Steven M van Gaalen, Mark P Arts, Kit CB Roes, Arthur de Gast, Terry P Corbin, F Cumhur Öner

Abstract

Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cages have been widely used in the treatment of lumbar degenerative disc disorders, and show good clinical results. Still, complications such as subsidence and migration of the cage are frequently seen. A lack of osteointegration and fibrous tissues surrounding PEEK cages are held responsible. Ceramic implants made of silicon nitride show better biocompatible and osteoconductive qualities, and therefore are expected to lower complication rates and allow for better fusion.Purpose of this study is to show that fusion with the silicon nitride cage produces non-inferior results in outcome of the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire at all follow-up time points as compared to the same procedure with PEEK cages.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 92 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 2%
Italy 1 1%
Unknown 89 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 17 18%
Student > Master 13 14%
Other 11 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 10%
Student > Bachelor 7 8%
Other 18 20%
Unknown 17 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 31 34%
Engineering 10 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 5%
Other 9 10%
Unknown 26 28%

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 25 February 2014.
All research outputs
#3,555,884
of 5,036,908 outputs
Outputs from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#1,405
of 1,695 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#83,208
of 123,716 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#104
of 118 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 5,036,908 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,695 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.3. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% 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 123,716 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 118 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.