| Title |
Ultrasound classification of traumatic distal biceps brachii tendon injuries
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Skeletal Radiology, November 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00256-017-2816-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Javier de la Fuente, Marc Blasi, Sílvia Martínez, Pablo Barceló, Carlos Cachán, Maribel Miguel, Carles Pedret |
| Abstract |
The present work is aimed at analysing ultrasound findings in patients with distal biceps brachii tendon (DBBT) injuries to assess the sensitivity of ultrasound in detecting the different forms of injury, and to compare ultrasound results with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and surgical results. A total of 120 patients with traumatic DBBT injuries examined between 2011 and 2015 were analysed. We compared ultrasound results with MRI results when surgery was not indicated and with MRI and surgical results when surgery was indicated. For major DBBT injuries (complete tears and high-grade partial tears), the concordance study between exploration methods and surgical results found that ultrasound presented a slight statistically significant advantage over MRI (ultrasound: κ = 0.95-very good-95% CI 0.88 to 1.01, MRI: κ = 0.63-good-95% CI 0.42 to 0.84, kappa difference p < 0.01). Minor injuries, in which most tendon fibres remain intact (tendinopathies, elongations and low-grade partial tears), are the most difficult to interpret, as ultrasound and MRI reports disagreed in 12 out of 39 cases and no surgical confirmation could be obtained. Based on present results and previous MRI classifications, we establish a traumatic DBBT injury ultrasound classification. The sensitivity and ultrasound-surgery correlation results in the diagnosis of major DBBT injuries obtained in the present study support the recommendation that ultrasound can be used as a first-line imaging modality to evaluate DBBT injuries. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 111 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 | 32 | 29% |
| United Kingdom | 14 | 13% |
| Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of | 5 | 5% |
| United States | 5 | 5% |
| Australia | 3 | 3% |
| Netherlands | 2 | 2% |
| Canada | 2 | 2% |
| France | 1 | <1% |
| Colombia | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 8 | 7% |
| Unknown | 38 | 34% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 87 | 78% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 15 | 14% |
| Scientists | 8 | 7% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | <1% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 78 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 78 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 10 | 13% |
| Researcher | 9 | 12% |
| Other | 7 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 8% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 5 | 6% |
| Other | 18 | 23% |
| Unknown | 23 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 31 | 40% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 5% |
| Sports and Recreations | 4 | 5% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 4% |
| Engineering | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 7 | 9% |
| Unknown | 27 | 35% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 72. 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 29 October 2021.
All research outputs
#594,627
of 25,381,384 outputs
Outputs from Skeletal Radiology
#16
of 1,589 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#13,377
of 452,269 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Skeletal Radiology
#3
of 47 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,381,384 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,589 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 452,269 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 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 47 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.