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 |
The use of growth standards and corrective formulae to calculate the height loss caused by idiopathic scoliosis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Scoliosis and Spinal Disorders, February 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13013-016-0068-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Adrian Gardner, Anna Price, Fiona Berryman, Paul Pynsent |
| Abstract |
Loss of trunk height caused by scoliosis has been previously assessed using different mathematical formulae. However, these are of differing algebraic construction and will give a range of values for the same size of scoliosis curve. As such, the following study attempted to determine the most valid published formulae for calculating height loss caused by idiopathic scoliosis based on reported growth charts. The height and sitting height for a group with idiopathic scoliosis were measured. These were plotted on published growth standards. The size of the coronal curves and the thoracic kyphosis was measured. Height was corrected for the size of the scoliosis using the formulae and replotted on the growth standards. The data spread on the standard was analysed for significant differences between the median and the 5th or 95th centile, and between data outside the 5th and 95th centile. The sitting to standing height ratio growth standard was used in the analysis as it minimised errors across the different growth standards, given that these standards come from different original populations. In the female group significant differences in the data spread were seen using the formulae of Bjure, Ylikoski and Hwang. Non-significant results were seen for the Kono and Stokes formulae. All formulae caused no significant differences in data spread across the growth standard in the males group. When assessing against growth standards, the formulae of Kono and Stokes are the most valid at determining height loss caused by idiopathic scoliosis. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Cyprus | 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 21 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 20 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 5 | 24% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 14% |
| Researcher | 3 | 14% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 10% |
| Other | 2 | 10% |
| Unknown | 3 | 14% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 14 | 67% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 5% |
| Sports and Recreations | 1 | 5% |
| Engineering | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 4 | 19% |
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 27 February 2016.
All research outputs
#17,790,561
of 22,852,911 outputs
Outputs from Scoliosis and Spinal Disorders
#87
of 97 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#202,478
of 297,860 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Scoliosis and Spinal Disorders
#8
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,852,911 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 97 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% 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 297,860 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.