↓ Skip to main content

Surgical treatment for achilles tendinopathy – a systematic review

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

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (69th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
10 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
60 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
113 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
Surgical treatment for achilles tendinopathy – a systematic review
Published in
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, May 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12891-016-1061-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Heinz Lohrer, Sina David, Tanja Nauck

Abstract

The purpose of this systematic review is to analyse the results of operative treatment for midportion Achilles tendinopathy and to provide evidence based recommendation for the indication of the individual published techniques. MEDLINE, Cochrane Database, ISI Web of Knowledge and Google databases (1945 till September 2014) were electronically searched. The quality of the included articles was evaluated using the Coleman Methodology Score. Success rates, patient satisfaction, and the complication rates were determined. Twenty studies met our inclusion criteria. A total of 801 tendons were treated in 714 patients with open or minimally invasive techniques. The mean success rate was 83.4 %. Complications were reported in 6.3 % of the cases. The articles on minimally invasive techniques and open procedures reported on an average success rate of 83.6 % and 78.9 (p = 0.987). Patient satisfaction rates for minimally invasive techniques and open procedures were 78.5 % and 78.1 % (p = 0.211). The complication rate was 5.3 % for the minimally invasive techniques and 10.5 % for the open procedures (p = 0.053). We conclude that success rates of minimally invasive and open treatments are not different and that there is no difference in patient satisfaction but there is a tendency for more complications to occur in open procedures.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 113 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 113 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 21 19%
Student > Master 14 12%
Other 13 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 9%
Researcher 7 6%
Other 19 17%
Unknown 29 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 28 25%
Nursing and Health Professions 22 19%
Sports and Recreations 15 13%
Engineering 6 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 3%
Other 6 5%
Unknown 33 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 08 September 2016.
All research outputs
#5,981,606
of 23,881,329 outputs
Outputs from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#1,094
of 4,185 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#84,008
of 307,513 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#26
of 82 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,881,329 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,185 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% 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 307,513 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 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 82 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 69% of its contemporaries.