↓ Skip to main content

A systematic review on skin complications of bone-anchored hearing aids in relation to surgical techniques

Overview of attention for article published in European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology, December 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
42 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
42 Mendeley
Title
A systematic review on skin complications of bone-anchored hearing aids in relation to surgical techniques
Published in
European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology, December 2014
DOI 10.1007/s00405-014-3436-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Shwan Mohamad, Imran Khan, S. Y. Hey, S. S. Musheer Hussain

Abstract

A systematic review to study the skin complications associated with the bone-anchored hearing aid in relation to surgical techniques. The following databases have been searched: MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library , Google scholar and the PubMed. The literature search date was from January 1977 until November 2013. Randomised controlled trials and retrospective studies were included. Initial search identified 420 publications. Thirty articles met the inclusion criteria of this review. The most common surgical techniques identified were full-thickness skin graft, Dermatome and linear incision techniques. The result shows that dermatome technique is associated with higher rate of skin complications when compared to linear incision and skin graft techniques. Based on the available literature, the use of a linear incision technique appears to be associated with lower skin complications; however, there is limited data available supporting this. Higher quality studies would allow a more reliable comparison between the surgical techniques.

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 42 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 42 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 19%
Student > Master 6 14%
Student > Bachelor 4 10%
Researcher 3 7%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 5%
Other 3 7%
Unknown 16 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 36%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 2%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 2%
Environmental Science 1 2%
Other 4 10%
Unknown 18 43%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 02 March 2022.
All research outputs
#6,941,451
of 23,243,271 outputs
Outputs from European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology
#379
of 3,139 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#93,966
of 357,306 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology
#3
of 94 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,243,271 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,139 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.1. 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 357,306 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 94 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.