Title |
Single- or Two-stage Revision for Infected Total Hip Arthroplasty? A Systematic Review of the Literature
|
---|---|
Published in |
Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research, September 2013
|
DOI | 10.1007/s11999-013-3294-y |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Hugh A. C. Leonard, Alexander D. Liddle, Órlaith Burke, David W. Murray, Hemant Pandit |
Abstract |
The best approach for surgical treatment of an infected THA remains controversial. Two-stage revision is believed to result in lower reinfection rates but may result in significant functional impairment. Some authors now suggest that single-stage revision may provide comparable results in terms of infection eradication while providing superior functional outcomes. |
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 % |
---|---|---|
Canada | 1 | 50% |
Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 50% |
Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 155 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United States | 1 | <1% |
Unknown | 154 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Master | 19 | 12% |
Other | 18 | 12% |
Researcher | 15 | 10% |
Student > Bachelor | 15 | 10% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 15 | 10% |
Other | 34 | 22% |
Unknown | 39 | 25% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 88 | 57% |
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 5 | 3% |
Engineering | 4 | 3% |
Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 2% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 1% |
Other | 9 | 6% |
Unknown | 44 | 28% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. 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 June 2019.
All research outputs
#2,089,112
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research
#282
of 7,298 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#18,221
of 213,829 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research
#3
of 95 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
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 has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 213,829 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 95 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.