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 |
Malalignment and malposition of quadriceps-sparing approach in primary total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research, September 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13018-017-0627-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Fu-Zhen Yuan, Shao-Jie Wang, Zhu-Xing Zhou, Jia-Kuo Yu, Dong Jiang |
| Abstract |
Quadriceps-sparing (QS) approach is considered to be the most minimally invasive surgery for total knee arthroplasty (TKA). We perform this meta-analysis to evaluate whether malalignment and malposition are more biased towards the QS approach compared to the traditional medial parapatellar (MP) approach, which is still controversial. According to the PRISMA guidelines, a comprehensive search was conducted in the databases of PubMed, the Cochrane library, and Embase. Relevant measures were extracted independently by two investigators. Five randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and eight retrospective studies including a total of 1261 cases were identified. The QS approach was associated with more outliers of hip-knee-ankle (HKA) angle (p = 0.03), coronal tibial component angle (p = 0.03), and femoral notch (p = 0.05). However, the differences of the outlier of the coronal femoral component angle between the two groups were not statistically significant. This meta-analysis indicates that the QS approach is related to the high risk of malalignment and malposition. However, different studies reported different indicators resulting in small samples for analyzing the radiological outcomes. In addition, both of the relatively long learning curve and the present instruments might increase the risk of malalignment and malposition of the QS approach, which needs further study and improvement. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 33 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 21% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 6% |
| Researcher | 2 | 6% |
| Lecturer | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 4 | 12% |
| Unknown | 14 | 42% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 16 | 48% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 3% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 3% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 14 | 42% |
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 06 September 2017.
All research outputs
#18,571,001
of 23,001,641 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research
#965
of 1,398 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#242,036
of 315,600 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research
#14
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,001,641 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,398 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.6. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% 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 315,600 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 25 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.