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 |
Structured reporting of x-rays for atraumatic shoulder pain: advantages over free text?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Imaging, July 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12880-018-0262-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Franziska Schöppe, Wieland H. Sommer, Florian Schmidutz, Dominik Pförringer, Marco Armbruster, Karolin J. Paprottka, Jessica L. V. Plum, Bastian O. Sabel, Felix G. Meinel, Nora N. Sommer |
| Abstract |
To analyse structured and free text reports of shoulder X-ray examinations evaluating the quality of reports and potential contributions to clinical decision-making. We acquired both standard free text and structured reports of 31 patients with a painful shoulder without history of previous trauma who received X-ray exams. A template was created for the structured report based on the template ID 0000154 (Shoulder X-ray) from radreport.org using online software with clickable decision trees with concomitant generation of structured semantic reports. All reports were evaluated regarding overall quality and key features: content, information extraction and clinical relevance. Two experienced orthopaedic surgeons reviewed and rated structured and free text reports of 31 patients independently. The structured reports achieved significantly higher median ratings in all key features evaluated (P < 0.001), including facilitation of information extraction (P < 0.001) and better contribution to subsequent clinical decision-making (P < 0.001). The overall quality of structured reports was significantly higher than in free text report (P < 0.001). A comprehensive structured template may be a useful tool to assist in clinical decision-making and is, thus, recommended for the reporting of degenerative changes regarding X-ray examinations of the shoulder. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 67% |
| Germany | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 33% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 33% |
| Scientists | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 29 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 14% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 10% |
| Researcher | 3 | 10% |
| Librarian | 2 | 7% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 4 | 14% |
| Unknown | 11 | 38% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 28% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 17% |
| Engineering | 2 | 7% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 13 | 45% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 28 December 2018.
All research outputs
#13,764,327
of 23,339,727 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Imaging
#163
of 614 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#170,828
of 328,624 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Imaging
#3
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,339,727 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 614 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% 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 328,624 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.