| Title |
Return to sport after muscle injury
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Current Reviews in Musculoskeletal Medicine, March 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s12178-015-9262-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Stephanie Wong, Anne Ning, Carlin Lee, Brian T. Feeley |
| Abstract |
Skeletal muscle injuries are among the most common sports-related injuries that result in time lost from practice and competition. The cellular response to muscle injury can often result in changes made to the muscle fibers as well as the surrounding extracellular matrix during repair. This can negatively affect the force and range of the injured muscle even after the patient's return to play. Diagnosis of skeletal muscle injury involves both history and physical examinations; imaging modalities including ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) can also be used to assess the extent of injury. Current research is investigating potential methods, including clinical factors and MRI, by which to predict a patient's return to sports. Overall, function of acutely injured muscles seems to improve with time. Current treatment methods for skeletal muscle injuries include injections of steroids, anesthetics, and platelet-rich plasma (PRP). Other proposed methods involve inhibitors of key players in fibrotic pathways, such as transforming growth factor (TGF)-ß and angiotensin II, as well as muscle-derived stem cells. |
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 | 3 | 38% |
| United States | 2 | 25% |
| Saudi Arabia | 1 | 13% |
| Unknown | 2 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 8 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 116 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Qatar | 1 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 114 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 18 | 16% |
| Student > Bachelor | 17 | 15% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 10 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 9 | 8% |
| Other | 8 | 7% |
| Other | 22 | 19% |
| Unknown | 32 | 28% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 33 | 28% |
| Sports and Recreations | 15 | 13% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 12 | 10% |
| Social Sciences | 6 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 11 | 9% |
| Unknown | 36 | 31% |
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 06 July 2023.
All research outputs
#5,914,187
of 24,219,576 outputs
Outputs from Current Reviews in Musculoskeletal Medicine
#171
of 515 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#63,609
of 262,738 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Reviews in Musculoskeletal Medicine
#9
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,219,576 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 515 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% 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 262,738 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 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.