| Title |
Systematic Review of Patient‐specific Instrumentation in Total Knee Arthroplasty: New but Not Improved
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research, January 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11999-014-3804-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Adam Sassoon, Denis Nam, Ryan Nunley, Robert Barrack |
| Abstract |
Patient-specific cutting blocks have been touted as a more efficient and reliable means of achieving neutral mechanical alignment during TKA with the proposed downstream effect of improved clinical outcomes. However, it is not clear to what degree published studies support these assumptions. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 | 2 | 29% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 14% |
| Greece | 1 | 14% |
| United States | 1 | 14% |
| Unknown | 2 | 29% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 29% |
| Scientists | 2 | 29% |
| Members of the public | 2 | 29% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 14% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 187 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Sweden | 1 | <1% |
| Italy | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 185 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 28 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 26 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 25 | 13% |
| Other | 19 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 18 | 10% |
| Other | 39 | 21% |
| Unknown | 32 | 17% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 82 | 44% |
| Engineering | 26 | 14% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 8 | 4% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 2% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 2% |
| Other | 16 | 9% |
| Unknown | 48 | 26% |
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 21 January 2016.
All research outputs
#6,481,661
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research
#1,739
of 7,298 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#79,381
of 359,538 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research
#23
of 138 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 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 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 76% 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 359,538 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 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 138 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.