| Title |
Advances and utility of diagnostic ultrasound in musculoskeletal medicine
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Current Reviews in Musculoskeletal Medicine, November 2007
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s12178-007-9002-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Paul H. Lento, Scott Primack |
| Abstract |
Musculoskeletal ultrasound (US) can serve as an excellent imaging modality for the musculoskeletal clinician. Although MRI is more commonly ordered in the United States for musculoskeletal problems, both of these imaging modalities have advantages and disadvantages and can be viewed as complementary rather than adversarial. For diagnostic US, relative recent advances in technology have improved ultrasound's ability to diagnose a myriad of musculoskeletal problems with enhanced resolution. The structures most commonly imaged with diagnostic musculoskeletal US, include tendon, muscle, nerve, joint, and some osseous pathology. This brief review article will discuss the role of US in imaging various common musculoskeletal disorders and will highlight, where appropriate, how recent technological advances have improved this imaging modality in musculoskeletal medicine. Additionally, clinicians practicing musculoskeletal medicine should be aware of the ability as well as limitations of this unique imaging modality and become familiar with conditions where US may be more advantageous than MRI. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 20% |
| Canada | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 3 | 60% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 80% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 153 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Russia | 1 | <1% |
| Ukraine | 1 | <1% |
| Singapore | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 150 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 30 | 20% |
| Student > Master | 27 | 18% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 15 | 10% |
| Researcher | 14 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 11 | 7% |
| Other | 24 | 16% |
| Unknown | 32 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 50 | 33% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 21 | 14% |
| Engineering | 11 | 7% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 7 | 5% |
| Sports and Recreations | 7 | 5% |
| Other | 18 | 12% |
| Unknown | 39 | 25% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 November 2016.
All research outputs
#7,960,512
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Current Reviews in Musculoskeletal Medicine
#235
of 539 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#27,472
of 85,197 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Reviews in Musculoskeletal Medicine
#7
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 539 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% 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 85,197 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 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.