| Title |
Reliability of clinical diagnosis in meniscal tears
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Orthopaedics, April 2006
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00264-006-0131-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
B. R. Mohan, Harminder S. Gosal |
| Abstract |
This retrospective study was conducted to analyse the reliability of clinical diagnosis in meniscal tear injuries. All patients attending our clinic with knee pain from January 2003 to December 2004 underwent systematic and thorough clinical assessment. One hundred and fifty patients were clinically diagnosed to have meniscal tears. All these patients underwent therapeutic arthroscopic knee surgery. The clinical diagnosis was confirmed during this procedure. The accuracy, sensitivity and specificity were calculated based on these arthroscopic findings. The accuracy of clinical diagnosis in our study was 88% for medial meniscal tears and 92% for lateral meniscal tears. The results of this study demonstrate that clinical diagnosis of meniscal tears is as reliable as the results published by other authors for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan. We recommend the use of MRI for more doubtful, difficult and complex knee injuries. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 92 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 91 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Doctoral Student | 18 | 20% |
| Student > Bachelor | 15 | 16% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 10 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 8 | 9% |
| Other | 6 | 7% |
| Other | 16 | 17% |
| Unknown | 19 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 47 | 51% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 12 | 13% |
| Sports and Recreations | 6 | 7% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 2% |
| Arts and Humanities | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 4 | 4% |
| Unknown | 20 | 22% |
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 10 May 2016.
All research outputs
#7,245,580
of 23,613,071 outputs
Outputs from International Orthopaedics
#395
of 1,475 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#22,413
of 66,859 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Orthopaedics
#5
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,613,071 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,475 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% 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 66,859 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 65% 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 2 of them.