↓ Skip to main content

Effects of toe-in angles on knee biomechanics in cycling of patients with medial knee osteoarthritis

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Biomechanics, January 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (80th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
10 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Readers on

mendeley
142 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
Effects of toe-in angles on knee biomechanics in cycling of patients with medial knee osteoarthritis
Published in
Clinical Biomechanics, January 2015
DOI 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2015.01.003
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Cycling is commonly prescribed for knee osteoarthritis, but previous literature on biomechanics during cycling and the effects of acute intervention on osteoarthritis patients does not exist. Due to their altered knee kinematics, osteoarthritis patients may be at greater risk of osteoarthritis progression or other knee injuries during cycling. This study investigated the effects of reduced foot progression (toe-in) angles on knee joint biomechanics in subjects with medial compartment knee osteoarthritis.

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 10 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 142 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 %
United States 2 1%
France 1 <1%
Unknown 139 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 22 15%
Student > Bachelor 19 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 13%
Researcher 9 6%
Other 8 6%
Other 32 23%
Unknown 33 23%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 24 17%
Medicine and Dentistry 22 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 21 15%
Engineering 13 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 5%
Other 7 5%
Unknown 48 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 24 May 2018.
All research outputs
#5,712,868
of 27,528,049 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Biomechanics
#340
of 2,328 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#70,977
of 367,360 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Biomechanics
#6
of 30 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 27,528,049 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,328 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% 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 367,360 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 30 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.