| Title |
Endoscopic Carpal Tunnel Release Is Preferred Over Mini-open Despite Similar Outcome: A Randomized Trial
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research, October 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11999-012-2666-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ho Jung Kang, Il Hyun Koh, Tae Jin Lee, Yun Rak Choi |
| Abstract |
The decision to perform endoscopic versus the mini-open carpal tunnel release technique is most likely left to surgeons rather than patients with idiopathic carpal tunnel syndrome. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 50% |
| Scientists | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 106 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Saudi Arabia | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 104 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 19 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 17 | 16% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 11 | 10% |
| Researcher | 8 | 8% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 6 | 6% |
| Other | 21 | 20% |
| Unknown | 24 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 47 | 44% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 19 | 18% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 4% |
| Psychology | 2 | 2% |
| Unspecified | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 6 | 6% |
| Unknown | 27 | 25% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 21 August 2013.
All research outputs
#16,721,717
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research
#5,354
of 7,298 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#129,587
of 202,002 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research
#79
of 139 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,298 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 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% 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 202,002 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 139 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.