↓ Skip to main content

Effect of low-intensity pulsed ultrasound on distraction osteogenesis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research, August 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (64th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
23 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
51 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
Effect of low-intensity pulsed ultrasound on distraction osteogenesis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
Published in
Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research, August 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13018-018-0907-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Shenghan Lou, Houchen Lv, Zhirui Li, Peifu Tang, Yansong Wang

Abstract

Low-intensity pulsed ultrasound (LIPUS) is a common adjunct used to promote bone healing for fresh fractures and non-unions, but its efficacy for bone distraction osteogenesis remains uncertain. This study aims to determine whether LIPUS can effectively and safely reduce the associated treatment time for patients undergoing distraction osteogenesis. MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were searched until May 1, 2018, without language restriction. Studies should be randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs of LIPUS compared with sham devices or no devices in patients who undergo distraction osteogenesis. The primary outcome was the treatment time. The secondary outcome was the risk of complications. Treatment effects were assessed using mean differences, standardized mean differences, or risk ratios using a random-effects model. The Cochrane risk-of-bias tool was used to assess the risk of bias. The I2 statistic was used to assess the heterogeneity. The GRADE system was used to evaluate the evidence quality. A total of 7 trials with 172 patients were included. The pooled results suggested that during the process of distraction osteogenesis, LIPUS therapy did not show a statistically significant reduction in the treatment time (mean difference, - 8.75 days/cm; 95% CI, - 20.68 to 3.18 days/cm; P = 0.15; I2 = 72%) or in the risk of complications (risk ratio, 0.90 in favor of LIPUS; 95% CI, 0.65 to 1.24; I2 = 0%). Also, LIPUS therapy did not show a significant effect on the radiological gap fill area (standardized mean difference, 0.48 in favor of control; 95%CI, - 1.49 to 0.52; I2 = 0%), the histological gap fill length (standardized mean difference, 0.76 in favor of control; 95%CI, - 1.78 to 0.27; I2 = 0%), or the bone density increase (standardized mean difference, 0.43 in favor of LIPUS; 95%CI, - 0.02 to 0.88; I2 = 0%). Among patients undergoing distraction osteogenesis, neither the treatment time nor the risk of complications could be reduced by LIPUS therapy. The currently available evidence is insufficient to support the routine use of this intervention in clinical practice. CRD 42017073596.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 51 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 51 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 8 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 12%
Other 4 8%
Student > Postgraduate 4 8%
Researcher 4 8%
Other 8 16%
Unknown 17 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 18 35%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 10%
Engineering 3 6%
Neuroscience 2 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 2%
Other 5 10%
Unknown 17 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 11 September 2022.
All research outputs
#6,913,516
of 23,312,088 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research
#279
of 1,428 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#117,836
of 333,778 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research
#5
of 31 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,312,088 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,428 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% 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 333,778 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 64% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 31 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.