↓ Skip to main content

Management of atypical femoral fracture: a scoping review and comprehensive algorithm

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

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
44 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
Management of atypical femoral fracture: a scoping review and comprehensive algorithm
Published in
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, May 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12891-016-1086-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Giuseppe Toro, Cristina Ojeda-Thies, Giampiero Calabrò, Gabriella Toro, Antimo Moretti, Guillermo Martínez-Díaz Guerra, Pedro Caba-Doussoux, Giovanni Iolascon

Abstract

Atypical femoral fractures (AFF) are a rare type of femoral stress fracture recently described, potentially associated with prolonged bisphosphonate therapy. Evidence-based recommendations regarding diagnosis and management of these fractures are scarce. The purpose of this study is to propose an algorithm for the diagnosis and management of AFF. We performed a PubMed search of the last ten years using the keywords "atypical femoral fractures" and identified further articles through an evaluation of the publications cited in these articles. Relevant studies were included by agreement between researchers, depending on their specialization. Pertinent points of debate were discussed based on the available literature, allowing for consensus regarding the proposed management algorithm. Using a systematic approach we performed a scoping review that included a total of 137 articles. A practical guide for diagnosis and management of AFF based on the current concepts is proposed. In spite of the impressive large volume of published literature available since AFF were initially identified, the level of evidence is mostly poor, in particular regarding treatment choice. Therefore, further studies are required.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 87 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 87 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 16 18%
Researcher 10 11%
Student > Master 10 11%
Student > Postgraduate 8 9%
Student > Bachelor 7 8%
Other 19 22%
Unknown 17 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 55 63%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 6%
Engineering 2 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 1%
Other 1 1%
Unknown 18 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 14 August 2019.
All research outputs
#12,959,346
of 22,875,477 outputs
Outputs from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#1,743
of 4,055 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#164,130
of 333,426 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#39
of 76 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,875,477 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,055 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% 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 333,426 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 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 76 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.