↓ Skip to main content

The role of national registries in improving patient safety for hip and knee replacements

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, October 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (70th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (72nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
70 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 role of national registries in improving patient safety for hip and knee replacements
Published in
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, October 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12891-017-1773-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anne Lübbeke, Alan J. Silman, Daniel Prieto-Alhambra, Amanda I. Adler, Christophe Barea, Andrew J. Carr

Abstract

The serious adverse events associated with metal on metal hip replacements have highlighted the importance of improving methods for monitoring surgical implants. The new European Union (EU) device regulation will enforce post-marketing surveillance based on registries among other surveillance tools. Europe has a common regulatory environment, a common market for medical devices, and extensive experience with joint replacement registries. In this context, we elaborate how joint replacement registries, while building on existing structure and data, can better ensure safety and balance risks and benefits. Actions to improve registry-based implant surveillance include: enriching baseline and diversifying outcomes data collection; improving methodology to limit bias; speeding-up failure detection by active real-time monitoring; implementing risk-benefit analysis; coordinating collaboration between registries; and translating knowledge gained from the data into clinical decision-making and public health policy. The changes proposed here will improve patient safety, enforce the application of the new legal EU requirements, augment evidence, improve clinical decision-making, facilitate value-based health-care delivery, and provide up-to-date guidance for public health.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 tweeters 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 70 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 70 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 17%
Researcher 11 16%
Student > Bachelor 10 14%
Student > Master 9 13%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 6%
Other 15 21%
Unknown 9 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 20 29%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 9%
Engineering 5 7%
Social Sciences 5 7%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 4%
Other 14 20%
Unknown 17 24%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 02 November 2017.
All research outputs
#2,913,222
of 12,088,915 outputs
Outputs from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#636
of 2,408 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#82,251
of 285,250 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#35
of 132 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,088,915 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,408 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% 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 285,250 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 132 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 72% of its contemporaries.