↓ Skip to main content

Do we need to follow up an early normal ultrasound with a later plain radiograph in children with a family history of developmental dysplasia of the hip?

Overview of attention for article published in European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery & Traumatology, July 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (72nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
15 Mendeley
Title
Do we need to follow up an early normal ultrasound with a later plain radiograph in children with a family history of developmental dysplasia of the hip?
Published in
European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery & Traumatology, July 2015
DOI 10.1007/s00590-015-1668-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Suhayl Tafazal, Mark J. Flowers

Abstract

We routinely perform a pelvic radiograph between 6 and 12 months of age for children with a family history of developmental dysplasia of hip (DDH). We conducted this study to determine whether children with a family history of DDH and a normal hip ultrasound after birth require any further radiological follow-up. We identified all children referred to our hip-screening clinic in a 3-year period between August 2008 and August 2011 with a family history of DDH and a normal hip ultrasound after birth. A total of 119 patients with a normal hip ultrasound after birth had a pelvic radiograph at a median age of 6.6 months. Six patients had residual dysplasia (acetabular index >30°) on the initial radiograph; five of these had resolved spontaneously by age 12 months, and the remaining patient had a normal radiograph at 21 months of age and was discharged. We have found no cases of residual hip dysplasia requiring treatment in children with a family history of DDH and a normal hip ultrasound after birth. We have therefore changed our practice accordingly and no longer routinely followed up such cases. Diagnostic study, Level II.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 15 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 3 20%
Student > Postgraduate 3 20%
Librarian 2 13%
Student > Bachelor 1 7%
Other 1 7%
Other 2 13%
Unknown 3 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 73%
Unknown 4 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 22 July 2015.
All research outputs
#18,418,919
of 22,817,213 outputs
Outputs from European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery & Traumatology
#450
of 876 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#189,024
of 262,607 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery & Traumatology
#8
of 37 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,817,213 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 876 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.2. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 262,607 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 37 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 72% of its contemporaries.