↓ Skip to main content

Subjective and objective outcome measures after total knee replacement: is there a correlation?

Overview of attention for article published in Australian & New Zealand Journal of Surgery, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (79th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
65 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
Subjective and objective outcome measures after total knee replacement: is there a correlation?
Published in
Australian & New Zealand Journal of Surgery, August 2016
DOI 10.1111/ans.13708
Pubmed ID
Authors

Christy Graff, Erik Hohmann, Adam L. Bryant, Kevin Tetsworth

Abstract

Although various methods for quantifying outcomes following total knee replacement (TKR) are used, there are few studies of the relationships between patient reported scores and functional tests. This paper aims to assess the relationships between commonly used outcome scores after TKR through a prospective cohort study. Twenty-four patients who had undergone unilateral TKR were assessed using four patient-reported outcome scores as well as objective measurements of knee laxity, quadriceps muscle strength and the Timed Up and Go Test. All scores and measures were correlated using the Pearson product moment correlation coefficient using the lower one-sided 95% confidence interval. A level of significance of P < 0.05 was selected. The Timed Up and Go Test was the only objective measure to demonstrate a statistically significant correlation (r = -0.557 to -0.770, P = 0.0001-0.005) with patient-reported scores. A comprehensive assessment of outcomes after TKR requires both subjective and objective assessments. Walking ability and speed are important to the TKR patient and are representative of their pain and function.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 65 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
Unknown 64 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 14 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 17%
Researcher 7 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 6%
Student > Postgraduate 4 6%
Other 9 14%
Unknown 16 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 18 28%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 14%
Engineering 5 8%
Sports and Recreations 4 6%
Psychology 1 2%
Other 3 5%
Unknown 25 38%
Attention Score in Context

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 02 September 2016.
All research outputs
#16,048,009
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Australian & New Zealand Journal of Surgery
#1,183
of 2,617 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#209,033
of 351,393 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Australian & New Zealand Journal of Surgery
#8
of 53 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,617 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% 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 351,393 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 53 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.