↓ Skip to main content

Reliability of maximal isometric knee strength testing with modified hand-held dynamometry in patients awaiting total knee arthroplasty: useful in research and individual patient settings? A…

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, October 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (57th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
100 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
176 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
Reliability of maximal isometric knee strength testing with modified hand-held dynamometry in patients awaiting total knee arthroplasty: useful in research and individual patient settings? A reliability study
Published in
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, October 2011
DOI 10.1186/1471-2474-12-249
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ian FH Koblbauer, Yannick Lambrecht, Micheline LM van der Hulst, Camille Neeter, Raoul HH Engelbert, Rudolf W Poolman, Vanessa A Scholtes

Abstract

Patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty (TKA) often experience strength deficits both pre- and post-operatively. As these deficits may have a direct impact on functional recovery, strength assessment should be performed in this patient population. For these assessments, reliable measurements should be used. This study aimed to determine the inter- and intrarater reliability of hand-held dynamometry (HHD) in measuring isometric knee strength in patients awaiting TKA.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 176 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Luxembourg 1 <1%
Unknown 170 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 37 21%
Student > Bachelor 20 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 10%
Researcher 15 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 6%
Other 37 21%
Unknown 38 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 74 42%
Nursing and Health Professions 22 13%
Sports and Recreations 15 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 5%
Engineering 4 2%
Other 8 5%
Unknown 45 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 01 November 2011.
All research outputs
#12,558,792
of 22,655,397 outputs
Outputs from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#1,641
of 4,023 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#82,945
of 141,444 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#27
of 69 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,655,397 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,023 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% 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 141,444 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 69 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 57% of its contemporaries.