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 |
Clinical and radiological outcome of minimally invasive posterior lumbar interbody fusion in primary versus revision surgery
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research, January 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13018-015-0337-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
B. Hentenaar, A. B. Spoor, J. de Waal Malefijt, C. H. Diekerhof, B. L. den Oudsten |
| Abstract |
The aim of this study is to compare the clinical and radiological outcome of minimally invasive posterior lumbar interbody fusion (MI-PLIF) in revision and primary cases. In a retrospective study, we compared the clinical and radiological results of MI-PLIF for lytic spondylolisthesis (n = 28) and recurrent radiculopathy after herniated disc surgery (n = 28). Clinical outcome was assessed using the visual analogue score (VAS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Quality of life was assessed with the Euroqol-5d (EQ5D), the EQ5D VAS and the WHOQOL-BREF. The follow-up was 5.1 (SD 2.3) years. The decrease in VAS scores was significant and comparable in both groups. We found significantly better ODI and quality of life scores for the patients with lytic spondylolisthesis. The radiological outcome showed only one non-union, and subsidence occurred in both groups at an equal amount. The MI-PLIF technique is a safe procedure with only few complications and a high fusion rate. It was successful in both groups, but the quality of life and ODI are better in primary cases. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 11 | 27% |
| Other | 7 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 7% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 7% |
| Other | 3 | 7% |
| Unknown | 10 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 16 | 39% |
| Engineering | 4 | 10% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 5% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 5% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 2 | 5% |
| Unknown | 14 | 34% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 05 January 2016.
All research outputs
#15,353,264
of 22,837,982 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research
#647
of 1,372 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#230,530
of 393,289 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research
#19
of 30 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,837,982 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,372 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.6. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 393,289 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 30 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.