| Title |
Comparison of Robotic-assisted and Conventional Acetabular Cup Placement in THA: A Matched-pair Controlled Study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research, August 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11999-013-3253-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Benjamin G. Domb, Youssef F. El Bitar, Adam Y. Sadik, Christine E. Stake, Itamar B. Botser |
| Abstract |
Improper acetabular component orientation in THA has been associated with increased dislocation rates, component impingement, bearing surface wear, and a greater likelihood of revision. Therefore, any reasonable steps to improve acetabular component orientation should be considered and explored. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 202 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 202 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 30 | 15% |
| Other | 21 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 21 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 18 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 18 | 9% |
| Other | 36 | 18% |
| Unknown | 58 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 96 | 48% |
| Engineering | 16 | 8% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 2% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 1% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 1% |
| Other | 9 | 4% |
| Unknown | 70 | 35% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 01 June 2017.
All research outputs
#3,621,629
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research
#767
of 7,298 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#30,586
of 212,158 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research
#13
of 110 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% 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 well, scoring higher than 89% 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 212,158 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 110 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.