↓ Skip to main content

What’s in a name? Lower extremity fracture eponyms (Part 2)

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Emergency Medicine, July 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
13 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Readers on

mendeley
30 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
What’s in a name? Lower extremity fracture eponyms (Part 2)
Published in
International Journal of Emergency Medicine, July 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12245-015-0076-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Philip Kin-Wai Wong, Tarek N Hanna, Waqas Shuaib, Stephen M Sanders, Faisal Khosa

Abstract

Eponymous extremity fractures are commonly encountered in the emergency setting. Correct eponym usage allows rapid, succinct communication of complex injuries. We review both common and less frequently encountered extremity fracture eponyms, focusing on imaging features to identify and differentiate these injuries. We focus on plain radiographic findings, with supporting computed tomography (CT) images. For each injury, important radiologic descriptors are discussed which may need to be communicated to clinicians. Aspects of management and follow-up imaging recommendations are included. This is a two-part review: Part 1 focuses on fracture eponyms of the upper extremity, while Part 2 encompasses fracture eponyms of the lower extremity.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 30 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Andorra 1 3%
Spain 1 3%
Italy 1 3%
Unknown 27 90%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 6 20%
Researcher 5 17%
Student > Postgraduate 5 17%
Lecturer 3 10%
Other 1 3%
Other 4 13%
Unknown 6 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 50%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 10%
Engineering 2 7%
Computer Science 1 3%
Social Sciences 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 7 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. 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 23 May 2023.
All research outputs
#1,953,268
of 23,814,046 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Emergency Medicine
#60
of 615 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#25,828
of 264,611 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Emergency Medicine
#1
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,814,046 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 615 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 264,611 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.