↓ Skip to main content

Retro‐trochanteric sciatica‐like pain: current concept

Overview of attention for article published in Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy, June 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (54th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
108 Mendeley
Title
Retro‐trochanteric sciatica‐like pain: current concept
Published in
Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy, June 2011
DOI 10.1007/s00167-011-1573-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Khaled Meknas, Oddmund Johansen, Jüri Kartus

Abstract

The aim of this manuscript is to review the current knowledge in terms of retro-trochanteric pain syndrome, make recommendations for diagnosis and differential diagnosis and offer suggestions for treatment options. The terminology in the literature is confusing and these symptoms can be referred to as 'greater trochanteric pain syndrome', 'trochanteric bursitis' and 'trochanteritis', among other denominations. The authors focus on a special type of sciatica, i.e. retro-trochanteric pain radiating down to the lower extremity. The impact of different radiographic assessments is discussed. The authors recommend excluding pathology in the spine and pelvic area before following their suggested treatment algorithm for sciatica-like retro-trochanteric pain.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 108 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Lebanon 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 105 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 18 17%
Student > Bachelor 15 14%
Researcher 12 11%
Student > Postgraduate 10 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 6%
Other 27 25%
Unknown 19 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 49 45%
Nursing and Health Professions 17 16%
Sports and Recreations 11 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 4%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 <1%
Other 5 5%
Unknown 21 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 16 February 2016.
All research outputs
#5,672,787
of 22,715,151 outputs
Outputs from Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy
#688
of 2,636 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#27,989
of 100,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy
#10
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,715,151 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,636 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% 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 100,923 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 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 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 54% of its contemporaries.