| Title |
Swab Cultures Are Not As Effective As Tissue Cultures for Diagnosis of Periprosthetic Joint Infection
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research, April 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11999-013-2974-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Vinay K. Aggarwal, Carlos Higuera, Gregory Deirmengian, Javad Parvizi, Matthew S. Austin |
| Abstract |
While it is accepted accurate identification of infecting organisms is crucial in guiding treatment of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI), there remains no consensus regarding the best method for obtaining cultures. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 | 3 | 75% |
| Unknown | 1 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 25% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 25% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 25% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 123 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Germany | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 122 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 19 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 15 | 12% |
| Other | 14 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 11 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 9 | 7% |
| Other | 26 | 21% |
| Unknown | 29 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 71 | 58% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 6 | 5% |
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 3 | 2% |
| Philosophy | 1 | <1% |
| Linguistics | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 7 | 6% |
| Unknown | 34 | 28% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 10 July 2013.
All research outputs
#14,915,476
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research
#4,600
of 7,298 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#115,951
of 212,312 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research
#57
of 170 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% 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 35th percentile – i.e., 35% 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 212,312 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 170 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 62% of its contemporaries.