↓ Skip to main content

Re-infection outcomes following one- and two-stage surgical revision of infected hip prosthesis in unselected patients: protocol for a systematic review and an individual participant data meta-analysis…

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Reviews, April 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
34 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
Re-infection outcomes following one- and two-stage surgical revision of infected hip prosthesis in unselected patients: protocol for a systematic review and an individual participant data meta-analysis
Published in
Systematic Reviews, April 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13643-015-0044-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Setor K Kunutsor, Michael R Whitehouse, Jason Webb, Andrew Toms, Ian Stockley, Adrian Taylor, Stephen Jones, Matthew Wilson, Ben Burston, Tim Board, John-Paul Whittaker, Ashley W Blom, Andrew D Beswick

Abstract

Several aggregate published reviews have compared the effectiveness of one- and two-stage surgical revision to prevent re-infection following prosthetic hip infection and have reported inconsistent results. In addition, there were several features of these previous reviews which limited the validity of the findings. In the absence of a well-designed clinical trial, we propose the Global Infection Orthopaedic Management (INFORM) collaboration, a worldwide collaborative systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data (IPD) to address the existing uncertainties. Cohort studies (prospective or retrospective) and randomised controlled trials conducted in unselected patients with infection treated exclusively by one- or two-stage revision and reporting re-infection outcomes within 2 years of revision will be retrieved by searching the following databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. Reference lists of relevant studies will be manually scanned and there will be email contact with investigators of grey literature and conference abstracts. Investigators will be invited to join the Global INFORM collaboration and share their individual level data. The primary outcome of the analyses will be incidence of re-infection within 2 years of commencement of revision surgery. Primary analyses will be conducted comparing the one-stage to the two-stage surgical revision. IPD analyses will be based on Cox proportional hazard (PH) models estimated for each study separately. Study-specific log hazard ratios will be combined using random-effects meta-analysis with fixed-effects meta-analysis in subsidiary analyses. Hazard ratios for re-infection according to different individual level characteristics such as sex, age groups, body mass index and comorbidities will also be assessed. The analyses will enable a consistent approach to the definition of re-infection outcomes, more detailed analyses under a broader range of circumstances and exploration of potential sources of heterogeneity and produce much more valid and precise estimates of re-infection outcomes. PROSPERO 2015: CRD42015016664.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Indonesia 1 3%
Unknown 33 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Doctoral Student 6 18%
Student > Master 5 15%
Researcher 5 15%
Other 2 6%
Student > Bachelor 2 6%
Other 4 12%
Unknown 10 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 35%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 3%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 3%
Other 3 9%
Unknown 13 38%

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 20 July 2015.
All research outputs
#2,854,591
of 5,376,712 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#343
of 459 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#103,207
of 188,200 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#20
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 5,376,712 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 459 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.3. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% 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 188,200 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.