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.
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Meta-analysis of plate fixation versus intramedullary fixation for the treatment of mid-shaft clavicle fractures
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine, March 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13049-015-0108-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Bing Zhang, Yanbin Zhu, Fei Zhang, Wei Chen, Ye Tian, Yingze Zhang |
| Abstract |
This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to critically compare the outcomes of plate fixation (PF) versus intramedullary fixation (IF) for the treatment of mid-shaft clavicle fractures. Relevant original studies were searched in electronic databases of Medline, Embase, Cochrane central database and CNKI (all through October 2014). The study was performed according to the PRISMA statement. Studies that investigated the comparing effectiveness or complications between both groups and provided sufficient data of interest were included in this meta-analysis. Thirteen studies fulfilling inclusion and exclusion criteria were included in this meta-analysis, which included 479 participants in PF group and 457 in IF group. Compared to PFs, IFs outperformed PFs associated with a reduced surgery time, a shorter incision, rapid union time, better shoulder function recovery at 6 months and fewer complications of symptomatic hardware, refracture after hardware removal and hypertrophic scar. In other aspects such as functional recovery at 12 months and 24 months follow-up, shoulder motion range, complications of superficial infection,temporary brachial plexus lesion, nonunion, malunion, delayed union, implant failure, major revision needed, both techniques were comparable. The present evidence from this meta-analysis suggested that IF was a more advantaged method for the treatment of midshaft clavicle fractures. This present study might aid surgeons in making evidence-based decision about optimal surgical treatment of mid-shaft clavicular fracture. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 73 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | 1% |
| Ecuador | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 71 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 11 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 9 | 12% |
| Other | 6 | 8% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 8% |
| Researcher | 5 | 7% |
| Other | 17 | 23% |
| Unknown | 19 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 40 | 55% |
| Psychology | 2 | 3% |
| Engineering | 2 | 3% |
| Mathematics | 1 | 1% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 6 | 8% |
| Unknown | 21 | 29% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 20 March 2015.
All research outputs
#4,172,589
of 22,796,179 outputs
Outputs from Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine
#398
of 1,257 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#52,866
of 262,958 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine
#10
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,796,179 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,257 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% 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 262,958 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 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 50% of its contemporaries.