| Title |
What Are the Risks of Prophylactic Pinning to Prevent Contralateral Slipped Capital Femoral Epiphysis?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research, July 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11999-012-2680-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Wudbhav N. Sankar, Eduardo N. Novais, Christopher Lee, Ali A. AlOmari, Paul D. Choi, Benjamin J. Shore |
| Abstract |
Two decision analyses on managing the contralateral, unaffected hip after unilateral slipped capital femoral epiphysis (SCFE) have failed to yield consistent recommendations. Missing from both, however, are sufficient data on the risks associated with prophylactic pinning using modern surgical techniques. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Mexico | 1 | 50% |
| United States | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 122 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 2 | 2% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Switzerland | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 118 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 19 | 16% |
| Other | 14 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 12 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 11 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 10 | 8% |
| Other | 33 | 27% |
| Unknown | 23 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 74 | 61% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 4% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 3% |
| Computer Science | 2 | 2% |
| Engineering | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 6 | 5% |
| Unknown | 29 | 24% |
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 18 January 2013.
All research outputs
#15,982,037
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research
#5,073
of 7,298 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#119,441
of 206,705 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research
#38
of 115 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% 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 29th percentile – i.e., 29% 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 206,705 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 115 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 66% of its contemporaries.