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 |
A biomechanical comparison of conventional dynamic compression plates and string-of-pearls™ locking plates using cantilever bending in a canine Ilial fracture model
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Veterinary Research, July 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12917-017-1139-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Allison R Kenzig, James R Butler, Lauren B Priddy, Kristen R Lacy, Steven H Elder |
| Abstract |
Fracture of the ilium is common orthopedic injury that often requires surgical stabilization in canine patients. Of the various methods of surgical stabilization available, application of a lateral bone plate to the ilium is the most common method of fixation. Many plating options are available, each having its own advantages and disadvantages. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the biomechanical properties of a 3.5 mm String-of-Pearls™ plate and a 3.5 mm dynamic compression plate in a cadaveric canine ilial fracture model. Hemipelves were tested in cantilever bending to failure and construct stiffness, yield load, displacement at yield, ultimate load, and mode of failure were compared. The mean stiffness of dynamic compression plate (116 ± 47 N/mm) and String-of-Pearls™ plate (107 ± 18 N/mm) constructs, mean yield load of dynamic compression plate (793 ± 333 N) and String-of-Pearls™ plate (860 ± 207 N) constructs, mean displacement at yield of dynamic compression plate (8.6 ± 3.0 mm) and String-of-Pearls™ plate (10.2 ± 2.8 mm) constructs, and ultimate load at failure of dynamic compression plate (936 ± 320 N) and String-of-Pearls™ plate (939 ± 191 N) constructs were not significantly different. No differences were found between constructs with respect to mode of failure. No significant biomechanical differences were found between String-of-Pearls™ plate and dynamic compression plate constructs in this simplified cadaveric canine ilial fracture model. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Italy | 1 | 25% |
| Japan | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 2 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 25 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 25 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 5 | 20% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 16% |
| Other | 2 | 8% |
| Librarian | 1 | 4% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 11 | 44% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 9 | 36% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 12% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 12 | 48% |
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 21 July 2017.
All research outputs
#14,355,715
of 22,988,380 outputs
Outputs from BMC Veterinary Research
#1,111
of 3,064 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#174,377
of 312,390 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Veterinary Research
#58
of 108 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,988,380 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 3,064 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% 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 312,390 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 108 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.