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.
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Comparison of suprapatellar and infrapatellar intramedullary nailing for tibial shaft fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research, June 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13018-018-0846-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Liqing Yang, Yuefeng Sun, Ge Li |
| Abstract |
Optimal surgical approach for tibial shaft fractures remains controversial. We perform a meta-analysis from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to compare the clinical efficacy and prognosis between infrapatellar and suprapatellar intramedullary nail in the treatment of tibial shaft fractures. PubMed, OVID, Embase, ScienceDirect, and Web of Science were searched up to December 2017 for comparative RCTs involving infrapatellar and suprapatellar intramedullary nail in the treatment of tibial shaft fractures. Primary outcomes were blood loss, visual analog scale (VAS) score, range of motion, Lysholm knee scores, and fluoroscopy times. Secondary outcomes were length of hospital stay and postoperative complications. We assessed statistical heterogeneity for each outcome with the use of a standard χ2 test and the I2 statistic. The meta-analysis was undertaken using Stata 14.0. Four RCTs involving 293 participants were included in our study. The present meta-analysis indicated that there were significant differences between infrapatellar and suprapatellar intramedullary nail regarding the total blood loss, VAS scores, Lysholm knee scores, and fluoroscopy times. Suprapatellar intramedullary nailing could significantly reduce total blood loss, postoperative knee pain, and fluoroscopy times compared to infrapatellar approach. Additionally, it was associated with an improved Lysholm knee scores. High-quality RCTs were still required for further investigation. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 73 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 73 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 6 | 8% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 6 | 8% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 7% |
| Other | 4 | 5% |
| Other | 16 | 22% |
| Unknown | 31 | 42% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 26 | 36% |
| Unspecified | 4 | 5% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 4% |
| Engineering | 3 | 4% |
| Earth and Planetary Sciences | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 2 | 3% |
| Unknown | 34 | 47% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 14 November 2019.
All research outputs
#4,242,046
of 23,096,849 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research
#123
of 1,407 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#82,619
of 328,568 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research
#3
of 34 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,096,849 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,407 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 328,568 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 34 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 91% of its contemporaries.