↓ Skip to main content

Reliability of measurements of the fractured clavicle: a systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Reviews, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
18 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
Reliability of measurements of the fractured clavicle: a systematic review
Published in
Systematic Reviews, November 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13643-017-0614-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Paul Hoogervorst, Gerjon Hannink, Arnoud R. van Geene, Albert van Kampen

Abstract

The objective of this systematic review was to evaluate the reliability and reproducibility of measurements of shortening in midshaft clavicle fractures (MSCF) using any available imaging technique. Electronic databases (PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane) were searched. The 4-point-scale COSMIN checklist was used to evaluate the methodological quality of studies. Four studies on reliability of measurement of MSCF were identified. These studies were of fair and poor quality. The reported intrarater reliability varied between none to fair, and intrarater reliability was minimal. No definite conclusions could be drawn. In order to optimize future studies and the realization of comparable results, more research is necessary to identify a standardized method of imaging and measuring. Level of Evidence III.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 18 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 28%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 11%
Other 2 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 11%
Student > Master 1 6%
Other 2 11%
Unknown 4 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 33%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 11%
Engineering 2 11%
Computer Science 1 6%
Social Sciences 1 6%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 6 33%

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 07 December 2017.
All research outputs
#9,799,344
of 12,265,937 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#828
of 949 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#245,422
of 343,588 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#78
of 103 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,265,937 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 949 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.3. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% 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 343,588 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 103 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.