↓ Skip to main content

What are we measuring? A critique of range of motion methods currently in use for Dupuytren’s disease and recommendations for practice

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
68 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
What are we measuring? A critique of range of motion methods currently in use for Dupuytren’s disease and recommendations for practice
Published in
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, January 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12891-016-0884-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anna L. Pratt, Catherine Ball

Abstract

Range of motion is the most frequently reported measure used in practice to evaluate outcomes. A goniometer is the most reliable tool to assess range of motion yet, the lack of consistency in reporting prevents comparison between studies. The aim of this study is to identify how range of motion is currently assessed and reported in Dupuytren's disease literature. Following analysis recommendations for practice will be made to enable consistency in future studies for comparability. This paper highlights the variation in range of motion reporting in Dupuytren's disease. A Participants, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes and Study design format was used for the search strategy and search terms. Surgery, needle fasciotomy or collagenase injection for primary or recurrent Dupuytren's disease in adults were included if outcomes were monitored using range of motion to record change. A literature search was performed in May 2013 using subject heading and free-text terms to also capture electronic publications ahead of print. In total 638 publications were identified and following screening 90 articles met the inclusion criteria. Data was extracted and entered onto a spreadsheet for analysis. A thematic analysis was carried out to establish any duplication, resulting in the final range of motion measures identified. Range of motion measurement lacked clarity, with goniometry reportedly used in only 43 of the 90 studies, 16 stated the use of a range of motion protocol. A total of 24 different descriptors were identified describing range of motion in the 90 studies. While some studies reported active range of motion, others reported passive or were unclear. Eight of the 24 categories were identified through thematic analysis as possibly describing the same measure, 'lack of joint extension' and accounted for the most frequently used. Published studies lacked clarity in reporting range of motion, preventing data comparison and meta-analysis. Percentage change lacks context and without access to raw data, does not allow direct comparison of baseline characteristics. A clear description of what is being measured within each study was required. It is recommended that range of motion measuring and reporting for Dupuytren's disease requires consistency to address issues that fall into 3 main categories:- Definition of terms Protocol statement Outcome reporting.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 68 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
Unknown 67 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 16 24%
Student > Bachelor 10 15%
Other 8 12%
Researcher 7 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 4%
Other 11 16%
Unknown 13 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 31 46%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 15%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Sports and Recreations 2 3%
Engineering 1 1%
Other 8 12%
Unknown 14 21%

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 18 December 2016.
All research outputs
#13,345,109
of 15,115,672 outputs
Outputs from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#2,676
of 2,949 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#280,515
of 343,006 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,115,672 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,949 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.3. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 343,006 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
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