| Title |
The effects of low-intensity pulsed ultrasound and pulsed electromagnetic fields bone growth stimulation in acute fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery, June 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00402-014-2014-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
P. F. W. Hannemann, E. H. H. Mommers, J. P. M. Schots, P. R. G. Brink, M. Poeze |
| Abstract |
The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the best currently available evidence from randomized controlled trials comparing pulsed electromagnetic fields (PEMF) or low-intensity pulsed ultrasound (LIPUS) bone growth stimulation with placebo for acute fractures. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 5 | 56% |
| Philippines | 1 | 11% |
| Slovakia | 1 | 11% |
| Unknown | 2 | 22% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 8 | 89% |
| Scientists | 1 | 11% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 180 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Brazil | 2 | 1% |
| Saudi Arabia | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 177 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 23 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 22 | 12% |
| Researcher | 21 | 12% |
| Other | 17 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 13 | 7% |
| Other | 42 | 23% |
| Unknown | 42 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 67 | 37% |
| Engineering | 17 | 9% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 12 | 7% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 11 | 6% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 9 | 5% |
| Other | 14 | 8% |
| Unknown | 50 | 28% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 23. 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 09 June 2021.
All research outputs
#1,558,644
of 24,294,722 outputs
Outputs from Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery
#26
of 1,338 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#15,698
of 232,475 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery
#2
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,294,722 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,338 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 232,475 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 8 of them.