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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| 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. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 38 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Indonesia | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 37 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 13% |
| Researcher | 5 | 13% |
| Other | 3 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 8% |
| Other | 4 | 11% |
| Unknown | 12 | 32% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 13 | 34% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 5% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 5% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 3% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 4 | 11% |
| Unknown | 15 | 39% |
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
#15,340,005
of 22,817,213 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#1,590
of 1,998 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#157,419
of 265,014 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#35
of 44 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,817,213 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,998 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.7. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% 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 265,014 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 44 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.