↓ Skip to main content

Subjects with hip osteoarthritis show distinctive patterns of trunk movements during gait-a body-fixed-sensor based analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation, January 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
31 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
87 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
Subjects with hip osteoarthritis show distinctive patterns of trunk movements during gait-a body-fixed-sensor based analysis
Published in
Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation, January 2012
DOI 10.1186/1743-0003-9-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Inge HF Reininga, Martin Stevens, Robert Wagenmakers, Sjoerd K Bulstra, Johan W Groothoff, Wiebren Zijlstra, Reininga IH, Stevens M, Wagenmakers R, Bulstra SK, Groothoff JW, Zijlstra W

Abstract

Compensatory trunk movements during gait, such as a Duchenne limp, are observed frequently in subjects with osteoarthritis of the hip, yet angular trunk movements are seldom included in clinical gait assessments. Hence, the objective of this study was to quantify compensatory trunk movements during gait in subjects with hip osteoarthritis, outside a gait laboratory, using a body-fixed-sensor based gait analysis. Frontal plane angular movements of the pelvis and thorax and spatiotemporal parameters of persons who showed a Duchenne limp during gait were compared to healthy subjects and persons without a Duchenne limp.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 87 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 2 2%
Japan 1 1%
France 1 1%
Brazil 1 1%
Unknown 82 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 15 17%
Student > Master 14 16%
Student > Bachelor 12 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 11%
Student > Postgraduate 5 6%
Other 15 17%
Unknown 16 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 26 30%
Engineering 10 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 9%
Sports and Recreations 7 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 5%
Other 8 9%
Unknown 24 28%

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 17 April 2017.
All research outputs
#2,244,844
of 9,700,021 outputs
Outputs from Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation
#152
of 577 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#56,541
of 258,871 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation
#1
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 9,700,021 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 76th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 577 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% 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 258,871 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.