↓ Skip to main content

The acutely injured acromioclavicular joint – which imaging modalities should be used for accurate diagnosis? A systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, December 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 (74th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (74th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
51 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
86 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 acutely injured acromioclavicular joint – which imaging modalities should be used for accurate diagnosis? A systematic review
Published in
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, December 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12891-017-1864-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jonas Pogorzelski, Knut Beitzel, Francesco Ranuccio, Klaus Wörtler, Andreas B. Imhoff, Peter J. Millett, Sepp Braun

Abstract

The management of acute acromioclavicular (AC) joint injuries depends on the degree of injury diagnosed by the Rockwood classification. Inadequate imaging and not selecting the most helpful imaging protocols can often lead to incorrect diagnosis of the injury. A consensus on a diagnostic imaging protocol for acute AC joint injuries does not currently exist. Therefore we conducted a systematic review of the literature considering three diagnostic parameters for patients with acromioclavicular (AC) joint injuries: 1) Assessment of vertical instability; 2) Assessment of horizontal instability; 3) Benefit of weighted panoramic views. Internet databases were searched in March 2016 using the terms ("AC joint" OR "acromioclavicular joint") AND (MRI OR MR OR radiograph OR X-ray OR Xray OR ultrasound OR "computer tomography" OR "computed tomography" OR CT). Diagnostic, prospective, retrospective, cohort and cross- sectional studies were included to compare their use of different radiological methods. Case reports, cadaveric studies, and studies concerning chronic AC injuries and clinical outcomes were excluded. This search returned 1359 citations of which 1151 were excluded based on title, 116 based on abstract and 75 based on manuscript. 17 studies were included for review and were analyzed for their contributions to the three parameters of interest mentioned above. The inter- and intra-observer reliability for diagnosing vertical instabilities of the clavicle using x-ray alone show a high level of reproducibility while for horizontal instabilities the values were much more variable. In general, digitally measured parameters seem to be more precise and reliable between investigators than visual classification alone. Currently, evidence for the value of weighted views and other additional diagnostic imaging to supplement standard x-rays is controversial. To date there is no consensus on a gold standard for diagnostic measures needed to classify acute AC joint injuries. The inter- and intra-observer reliability for diagnosing vertical instabilities of the clavicle using bilateral projections show a high level of reproducibility while for horizontal instabilities the results are much more inconsistent. There is currently no clear consensus on a protocol for image-based diagnosis and classification of acute AC joint injuries, leading to a lack of confidence in reproducibility and reliability.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 86 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 86 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Doctoral Student 11 13%
Student > Postgraduate 10 12%
Student > Master 9 10%
Student > Bachelor 7 8%
Researcher 7 8%
Other 20 23%
Unknown 22 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 44 51%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 7%
Sports and Recreations 2 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 1%
Neuroscience 1 1%
Other 1 1%
Unknown 31 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 03 October 2022.
All research outputs
#5,827,675
of 23,466,057 outputs
Outputs from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#1,061
of 4,141 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#111,750
of 442,135 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#24
of 95 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,466,057 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 4,141 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% 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 442,135 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 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 95 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 74% of its contemporaries.