↓ Skip to main content

Triceps brachii tendon injury in four Pomeranians

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Veterinary Medical Science, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
25 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.
Title
Triceps brachii tendon injury in four Pomeranians
Published in
Journal of Veterinary Medical Science, March 2018
DOI 10.1292/jvms.17-0318
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ryosuke ECHIGO, Atsushi FUJITA, Ryohei NISHIMURA, Manabu MOCHIZUKI

Abstract

The cases of 4 Pomeranians with injury of the triceps brachii tendon that underwent surgical treatment were retrospectively reviewed to evaluate some clinical findings including signalment, cause of injury, clinical signs, pattern of injury, surgical technique, external coaptation after operation, complications, and outcomes. While all of the dogs showed non-weight bearing posture of the affected limbs and severe pain shortly after injury onset, the pain level decreased over time. A characteristic finding of the 4 cases was an absence of tension in the triceps brachii tendon when the elbow joint was flexed. The pattern of triceps brachii tendon injury was either laceration of the central part of the tendon (n=1) or tendon rupture at its insertion to the olecranon (n=3). Although there were no major complications after surgery in 3 cases, the remaining case required a revision surgery. Long lateral splint was effective method for external coaptation after operation. Diagnosis of triceps brachii tendon injury was not difficult if we even recognize this trauma. This form of injury can have a good prognosis with adequate surgery and postoperative coaptation.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 25 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 25 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 24%
Other 3 12%
Student > Postgraduate 3 12%
Student > Master 3 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 8%
Other 3 12%
Unknown 5 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 12 48%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 8%
Psychology 1 4%
Unknown 7 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 23 March 2018.
All research outputs
#19,951,180
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Veterinary Medical Science
#1,596
of 3,547 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#255,344
of 347,572 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Veterinary Medical Science
#27
of 84 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,547 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.5. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 347,572 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 84 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.