↓ Skip to main content

Wear, bone density, functional outcome and survival in vitamin E-incorporated polyethylene cups in reversed hybrid total hip arthroplasty: design of a randomized controlled trial

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, September 2012
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
2 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
58 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
Wear, bone density, functional outcome and survival in vitamin E-incorporated polyethylene cups in reversed hybrid total hip arthroplasty: design of a randomized controlled trial
Published in
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, September 2012
DOI 10.1186/1471-2474-13-178
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hugo C van der Veen, Inge van den Akker-Scheek, Sjoerd K Bulstra, Jos JAM van Raay

Abstract

Aseptic loosening of total hip arthroplasties is generally caused by periprosthetic bone resorption due to tissue reactions on polyethylene wear particles. In vitro testing of polyethylene cups incorporated with vitamin E shows increased wear resistance. The objective of this study is to compare vitamin E-stabilized highly cross-linked polyethylene with conventional cross-linked polyethylene in "reversed hybrid" total hip arthroplasties (cemented all-polyethylene cups combined with uncemented femoral stems). We hypothesize that the adjunction of vitamin E leads to a decrease in polyethylene wear in the long-term. We also expect changes in bone mineral density, less osteolysis, equal functional scores and increased implant survival in polyethylene cemented cups incorporated with vitamin E in the long-term.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters 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 58 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
United States 1 2%
Unknown 56 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 9 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 12%
Researcher 6 10%
Student > Bachelor 6 10%
Other 6 10%
Other 10 17%
Unknown 14 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 18 31%
Psychology 4 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 7%
Engineering 4 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 5%
Other 10 17%
Unknown 15 26%

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 06 December 2012.
All research outputs
#7,762,736
of 12,373,620 outputs
Outputs from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#1,520
of 2,454 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#71,081
of 127,735 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#15
of 27 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,373,620 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,454 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.8. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% 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 127,735 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 27 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.