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 |
Validation of the Liverpool Elbow Score for evaluation of elbow stiffness
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, August 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12891-018-2226-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ziyang Sun, Cunyi Fan |
| Abstract |
The Liverpool Elbow Score (LES) has been widely used to assess the outcomes of total elbow replacement in various conditions. However, there have been no published validation studies on LES for patients with stiff elbows undergoing arthrolysis. The purpose of this study was to find out whether LES could be equally applied to evaluate joint function in patients with elbow stiffness. A total of 63 patients with elbow stiffness were included in this retrospective validation study. The LES combines a nine-item patient-answered questionnaire (PAQ) and a six-item clinical assessment score (CAS), and can also be divided to evaluate two different parameters: elbow motion capacity (EMC) and elbow-related symptoms (ERS). Construct validity was assessed by correlating LES with previously validated scoring systems, and Spearman correlation coefficients (SCCs) were calculated. Effect size (ES) and standardized response mean (SRM) were calculated to determine responsiveness. There were no ceiling or floor effects in the target population. Good-to-excellent validity was determined based on total score (0.45-0.89), PAQ (0.42-0.88), CAS (0.35-0.60), EMC (0.46-0.86), and ERS (0.36-0.59). High responsiveness (ES/SRM) was observed in total score (2.80/2.24), PAQ (2.34/1.78), CAS (2.90/2.34), EMC (2.92/2.35), and ERS (0.55/0.52). Our results suggest that the LES is a valid elbow-specific scoring system that can be used to evaluate joint function in patients with elbow stiffness, though some items included had some weakness either. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 33 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 4 | 12% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 12% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 2 | 6% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 2 | 6% |
| Unknown | 19 | 58% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 12% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 12% |
| Sports and Recreations | 2 | 6% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 6% |
| Psychology | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 20 | 61% |
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 27 July 2023.
All research outputs
#7,783,218
of 24,176,645 outputs
Outputs from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#1,542
of 4,253 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#128,883
of 337,291 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#33
of 73 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,176,645 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,253 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% 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 337,291 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 61% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 73 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 54% of its contemporaries.