| Title |
US in peroneal tendon tear
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Ultrasound, February 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s40477-014-0072-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Lucio Molini, Stefano Bianchi |
| Abstract |
Peroneal tendon injuries are common also due to the recent increase in sports participants involved in amateur activities. Clinical evaluation generally provides a diagnosis, but diagnostic imaging is often required to confirm a clinical suspicion and make correct management decisions. Ultrasound (US) imaging is the method of choice in the study of peroneal tendon injuries due to the high resolution of the images and the possibility of performing dynamic studies. US is furthermore non-invasive and inexpensive and provides the possibility of performing US-guided steroid infiltration of the tendon sheath or the surrounding tissues. The present paper will address the normal anatomy of the peroneal tendons and related structures, US imaging techniques and the various conditions and injuries which may affect this anatomic region. Also more expensive imaging techniques, such as computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging, will be mentioned as well as their indications; however, they are required only in rare cases in which diagnosis remains uncertain or for pre-operative assessment. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 Kingdom | 4 | 50% |
| United States | 1 | 13% |
| Unknown | 3 | 38% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 7 | 88% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 13% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 38 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Luxembourg | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 37 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 8 | 21% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 16% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 11% |
| Other | 3 | 8% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 8% |
| Other | 7 | 18% |
| Unknown | 7 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 21 | 55% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 11% |
| Sports and Recreations | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 12 | 32% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 September 2019.
All research outputs
#6,996,781
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Ultrasound
#82
of 652 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#78,711
of 329,192 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Ultrasound
#3
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 652 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% 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 329,192 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 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.