↓ Skip to main content

Methods for Assessing Leg Length Discrepancy

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research, October 2008
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
30 X users
patent
3 patents
facebook
3 Facebook pages
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
277 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
550 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
Title
Methods for Assessing Leg Length Discrepancy
Published in
Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research, October 2008
DOI 10.1007/s11999-008-0524-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sanjeev Sabharwal, Ajay Kumar

Abstract

The use of accurate and reliable clinical and imaging modalities for quantifying leg-length discrepancy (LLD) is vital for planning appropriate treatment. While there are several methods for assessing LLD, we questioned how these compared. We therefore evaluated the reliability and accuracy of the different methods and explored the advantages and limitations of each method. Based on a systematic literature search, we identified 42 articles dealing with various assessment tools for measuring LLD. Clinical methods such as use of a tape measure and standing blocks were noted as useful screening tools, but not as accurate as imaging modalities. While several studies noted that the scanogram provided reliable measurements with minimal magnification, a full-length standing AP computed radiograph (teleoroentgenogram) is a more comprehensive assessment technique, with similar costs at less radiation exposure. We recommend use of a CT scanogram, especially the lateral scout view in patients with flexion deformities at the knee. Newer modalities such as MRI are promising but need further investigation before being routinely employed for assessment of LLD. Level of Evidence: Level IV, diagnostic study. See the Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 30 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 550 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 <1%
Germany 2 <1%
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Portugal 2 <1%
New Zealand 1 <1%
Ukraine 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Nigeria 1 <1%
Unknown 537 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 87 16%
Student > Master 74 13%
Researcher 56 10%
Student > Postgraduate 46 8%
Other 41 7%
Other 134 24%
Unknown 112 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 223 41%
Nursing and Health Professions 58 11%
Sports and Recreations 46 8%
Engineering 28 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 12 2%
Other 45 8%
Unknown 138 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 35. 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 03 October 2023.
All research outputs
#1,141,476
of 25,420,980 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research
#118
of 7,308 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,569
of 101,789 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research
#3
of 51 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,420,980 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,308 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 101,789 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 51 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 94% of its contemporaries.