↓ Skip to main content
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (68th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
85 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
Assessment of Disability Related to Femoroacetabular Impingement Syndrome by Use of the Patient-Reported Outcome Measure Information System (PROMIS) and Objective Measures of Physical Performance
Published in
The American Journal of Sports Medicine, June 2017
DOI 10.1177/0363546517708793
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

The National Institutes of Health (NIH)-sponsored Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement System (PROMIS) has been described as a valuable tool for characterizing outcomes among patients with specific musculoskeletal conditions. Additionally, previously proposed objective measures of physical performance among patients with nonarthritic hip abnormalities are costly and not practically incorporated into routine clinical practice. (1) To determine the ability of the PROMIS to differentiate between patients with femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) and asymptomatic controls, (2) to determine the effect of FAI on subjects' completion of timed physical performance measures, and (3) to determine whether associations exist between established patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures and subjects' completion of physical performance measures. Cross-sectional study; Level of evidence, 3. Twenty-two asymptomatic controls (CON group) and 20 patients with FAI completed multiple activities to assess physical ability: self-selected walking velocity (SSWV), timed stair ascent (TSA), four-square step test (FSST), and sit-to-stand five times test (STS5). All subjects also underwent a battery of PRO questionnaires: Visual Analog Scale for Pain (VAS), Modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), International Hip Outcome Tool (iHOT-33), Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS), and PROMIS. Descriptive analyses were performed and comparisons between groups were made by use of paired t tests with Bonferroni-Holm correction. Spearman's rank correlation coefficients were used to determine associations between physical performance measures and PRO. The magnitude of differences between groups for each measured variable was calculated by use of Cohen's d. Significant differences between CON and FAI groups were observed for all hip-specific PRO measures (CON vs FAI for all; HOOS 99.2 vs 42.8, P < .001, iHOT-33 99.0 vs 26.6, P < .001, mHHS 99.6 vs 62.2, P < .001). Similarly, PROMIS scores were significantly different between groups for 8 of 9 tested domains. Patients with FAI demonstrated significant decrements in performance of all tested physical measures compared with asymptomatic controls (CON vs FAI, SSWV: 1.51 vs 1.32 m/s, P = .002; TSA: 3.05 vs 5.92 s, P = .017; FSST: 4.83 vs 8.89 s, P = .006; STS5: CON 5.53 vs FAI 10.75 s, P = .005.) Deficits in activities involving hip flexion-TSA, STS5-were strongly associated ( r < -0.7, P < .001) with increased reports of disability. FAI has a negative effect on patient-reported and objectively measured function. Hip-specific and general measures such as PROMIS, FSST, TSA, and STS5 are responsive to FAI-associated debility and may be used to objectively assess surgical or rehabilitative outcomes.

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.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 85 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 85 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 13%
Student > Bachelor 9 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 9%
Researcher 7 8%
Other 6 7%
Other 14 16%
Unknown 30 35%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 25%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 16%
Sports and Recreations 7 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 4%
Engineering 3 4%
Other 2 2%
Unknown 35 41%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 December 2017.
All research outputs
#6,160,175
of 22,981,247 outputs
Outputs from The American Journal of Sports Medicine
#2,658
of 5,405 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#98,493
of 317,529 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The American Journal of Sports Medicine
#54
of 82 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,981,247 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,405 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% 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 317,529 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 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 82 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.