↓ Skip to main content

Stainless steel versus titanium volar multi-axial locking plates for fixation of distal radius fractures: a randomised clinical trial

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, March 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
120 Mendeley
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
Stainless steel versus titanium volar multi-axial locking plates for fixation of distal radius fractures: a randomised clinical trial
Published in
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, March 2014
DOI 10.1186/1471-2474-15-74
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gregory B Couzens, Susan E Peters, Kenneth Cutbush, Benjamin Hope, Fraser Taylor, Christopher D James, Carly R Rankin, Mark Ross

Abstract

Distal radius fractures are among the most common fractures seen in the hospital emergency department. Of these, over 40% are considered unstable and require some form of fixation. In recent years with the advent of low profile plating, open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) using volar plates has become the surgical treatment of choice in many hospitals. However, it is currently unknown which plating system has the lowest complication rate and/or superior clinical and radiological outcomes following surgery. Few studies have compared different types of plates, which may have various features, different plate and screw designs or may be manufactured from different materials (for example, stainless steel or titanium). This study will specifically investigate and compare the clinical and radiological outcomes and complication rates of two commonly used volar plating systems for fixation of distal radius fractures: one made from stainless steel (Trimed™ Volar Plate, Trimed™, California, USA) and the other made from titanium (Medartis® Aptus Volar Plate, Medartis®, Basel, Switzerland). The primary aim of this study is to determine if there is a difference on the Patient Reported Wrist Evaluation six months following ORIF using a volar plate for adult patients with a distal radius fracture.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 120 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 120 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 21 18%
Researcher 13 11%
Student > Bachelor 11 9%
Other 7 6%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 6%
Other 21 18%
Unknown 40 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 44 37%
Engineering 12 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 2%
Other 9 8%
Unknown 40 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 11 March 2014.
All research outputs
#18,366,246
of 22,747,498 outputs
Outputs from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#3,121
of 4,035 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#160,534
of 220,818 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#75
of 106 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,747,498 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,035 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% 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 220,818 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 106 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.