You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Femoral quadriceps neuromuscular electrical stimulation after total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Einstein (São Paulo), October 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1590/s1679-45082015rw3140 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Helena Bruna Bettoni Volpato, Paulo Szego, Mario Lenza, Silvia Lefone Milan, Claudia Talerman, Mario Ferretti |
| Abstract |
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of neuromuscular electrical stimulation in patients submitted to total knee arthroplasty. This was a systematic review with no language or publication status restriction. Our search was made in Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase and LILACS. Randomized or quasi-randomized clinical trials evaluating neuromuscular electrical stimulation after total knee arthroplasty were included. Four studies with moderate risk of bias and low statistical power were included, totalizing 376 participants. There was no statistically significant difference in knee function, pain and range of motion during 12 month follow-up. This review concluded that neuromuscular electrical stimulation was less effective than traditional rehabilitation in function, muscular strength and range of motion. However, this technique was useful for quadriceps activation during the first days after surgery. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 | 2 | 67% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 33% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 33% |
| Scientists | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 123 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 123 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 27 | 22% |
| Student > Master | 11 | 9% |
| Researcher | 9 | 7% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 8 | 7% |
| Other | 23 | 19% |
| Unknown | 36 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 33 | 27% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 29 | 24% |
| Sports and Recreations | 7 | 6% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 2% |
| Engineering | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 7 | 6% |
| Unknown | 42 | 34% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 01 June 2017.
All research outputs
#15,063,934
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Einstein (São Paulo)
#174
of 576 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#143,359
of 295,358 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Einstein (São Paulo)
#2
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 576 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% 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 295,358 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 51% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.