↓ 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 (58th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 tweeters

Readers on

mendeley
41 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.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 41 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 41 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 6 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 15%
Student > Postgraduate 4 10%
Researcher 4 10%
Other 4 10%
Other 5 12%
Unknown 12 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 39%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 12%
Engineering 3 7%
Sports and Recreations 1 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 2%
Other 3 7%
Unknown 12 29%

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 25 November 2018.
All research outputs
#7,136,819
of 13,918,103 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research
#154
of 772 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#113,068
of 273,347 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,918,103 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 772 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% 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 273,347 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 58% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them