↓ Skip to main content

Adult thigh muscle injuries—from diagnosis to treatment: what the radiologist should know

Overview of attention for article published in Skeletal Radiology, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (60th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
64 Mendeley
Title
Adult thigh muscle injuries—from diagnosis to treatment: what the radiologist should know
Published in
Skeletal Radiology, March 2018
DOI 10.1007/s00256-018-2929-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

João Cruz, Vasco Mascarenhas

Abstract

Muscle injuries are one of the major problems facing elite athletes, representing a significant source of time lost from competition, with substantial consequences for teams and athletes. There are considerable pressures for a rapid return, but players who return to competition too soon have an increased risk of recurrent muscle injuries, which are associated with longer lay-offs. Imaging plays a key role in achieving the correct diagnosis, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has emerged as the method of choice for skeletal muscle imaging. Several authors have reported prognostic MRI features, but it is difficult to predict the exact length of time to return to full training afterwards due to considerable discrepancy and overlap between different injuries. Therefore, development of a universally applicable classification and grading system is challenging. This paper aims to: (a) review the contemporary role of imaging in the setting of muscle injuries, with special focus on thigh muscles; (b) list the most accepted terminology used to describe muscle injuries;

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users 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 64 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 64 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 9 14%
Student > Bachelor 8 13%
Researcher 7 11%
Other 6 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 8%
Other 6 9%
Unknown 23 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 18 28%
Sports and Recreations 12 19%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 3%
Social Sciences 2 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 2%
Other 5 8%
Unknown 24 38%
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 08 June 2019.
All research outputs
#7,471,666
of 23,096,849 outputs
Outputs from Skeletal Radiology
#429
of 1,481 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#131,083
of 332,585 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Skeletal Radiology
#17
of 58 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,096,849 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,481 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 gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% 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 332,585 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 60% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 58 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 70% of its contemporaries.