↓ Skip to main content

Cadaveric experiments to evaluate pressure wave generated by radial shockwave treatment of plantar fasciitis

Overview of attention for article published in Foot & Ankle Surgery (Elsevier Science), August 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Readers on

mendeley
35 Mendeley
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.
Article details
Title
Cadaveric experiments to evaluate pressure wave generated by radial shockwave treatment of plantar fasciitis
Published in
Foot & Ankle Surgery (Elsevier Science), August 2016
DOI 10.1016/j.fas.2016.08.006
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Shockwave treatment is increasingly used for plantar fasciitis and Achilles tendinopathy. To be effective it is believed that high pressure must be achieved in the tissues. We report on the first human cadaveric experiments to characterize pressure from radial shockwave therapy (rSWT) for plantar fasciitis. The pressure from rSWT was measured in two cadaveric feet using a needle hydrophone. Maximal pressure and energy flux were calculated from the measurements. The pressure persisted longer than supposed, for up to 400μs. The peak negative pressure was up to two Mega Pascal. The predicted energy in the tissue strongly depended on the time interval used in calculations. The measured pressure may be sufficiently high to cause cavitation in the tissue, which is one of the proposed healing mechanisms associated with rSWT. The results suggest that the energy is imparted to the tissues for much longer than previously thought.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

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.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 35 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 35 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 23%
Other 2 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 6%
Student > Bachelor 2 6%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 6%
Other 6 17%
Unknown 13 37%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 29%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 14%
Engineering 3 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Computer Science 1 3%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 13 37%
Attention Score in Context

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 10 June 2018.
All research outputs
#21,768,159
of 34,518,147 outputs
Outputs from Foot & Ankle Surgery (Elsevier Science)
#280
of 643 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#197,732
of 339,872 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Foot & Ankle Surgery (Elsevier Science)
#3
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,518,147 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 643 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% 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 339,872 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.