↓ Skip to main content

Selection Criteria for Patients With Chronic Ankle Instability in Controlled Research: A Position Statement of the International Ankle Consortium

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Athletic Training, December 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (78th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
9 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
335 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
359 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Selection Criteria for Patients With Chronic Ankle Instability in Controlled Research: A Position Statement of the International Ankle Consortium
Published in
Journal of Athletic Training, December 2013
DOI 10.4085/1062-6050-49.1.14
Pubmed ID
Authors

Phillip A. Gribble, Eamonn Delahunt, Christopher M. Bleakley, Brian Caulfield, Carrie L. Docherty, Daniel Tik-Pui Fong, François Fourchet, Jay Hertel, Claire E. Hiller, Thomas W. Kaminski, Patrick O. McKeon, Kathryn M. Refshauge, Philip van der Wees, William Vicenzino, Erik A. Wikstrom

Abstract

While research on chronic ankle instability (CAI) and awareness of its impact on society and health care systems has grown substantially in the last 2 decades, the inconsistency in participant or patient selection criteria across studies presents a potential obstacle to addressing the problem properly. This major gap within the literature limits the ability to generalize this evidence to the target patient population. Therefore, there is a need to provide standards for patient or participant selection criteria in research focused on CAI with justifications using the best available evidence. The International Ankle Consortium provides this position paper to present and discuss an endorsed set of selection criteria for patients with CAI based on the best available evidence to be used in future research and study designs. These recommendations will enhance the validity of research conducted in this clinical population with the end goal of bringing the research evidence to the clinician and patient.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 359 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Iran, Islamic Republic of 1 <1%
Korea, Republic of 1 <1%
Chile 1 <1%
Qatar 1 <1%
Unknown 355 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 64 18%
Student > Master 55 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 30 8%
Researcher 21 6%
Other 18 5%
Other 48 13%
Unknown 123 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 78 22%
Nursing and Health Professions 57 16%
Sports and Recreations 55 15%
Engineering 5 1%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 <1%
Other 18 5%
Unknown 143 40%
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 23 February 2019.
All research outputs
#6,528,121
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Athletic Training
#1,158
of 2,131 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#70,028
of 319,317 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Athletic Training
#11
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,131 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.9. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% 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 319,317 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 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.