| Title |
Minimally Invasive Versus Open Sacroiliac Joint Fusion: Are They Similarly Safe and Effective?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research, February 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11999-014-3499-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Charles G. T. Ledonio, David W. Polly, Marc F. Swiontkowski |
| Abstract |
The sacroiliac joint has been implicated as a source of chronic low back pain in 15% to 30% of patients. When nonsurgical approaches fail, sacroiliac joint fusion may be recommended. Advances in intraoperative image guidance have assisted minimally invasive surgical (MIS) techniques using ingrowth-coated fusion rods; however, how these techniques perform relative to open anterior fusion of the sacroiliac joint using plates and screws is not known. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 114 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Germany | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 111 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 16 | 14% |
| Researcher | 15 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 14 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 12 | 11% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 10 | 9% |
| Other | 21 | 18% |
| Unknown | 26 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 52 | 46% |
| Sports and Recreations | 8 | 7% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 6 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 4% |
| Unspecified | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 11 | 10% |
| Unknown | 30 | 26% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 15 August 2017.
All research outputs
#7,778,071
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research
#2,134
of 7,298 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#88,676
of 329,390 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research
#24
of 109 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
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 gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% 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 329,390 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 109 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.