↓ Skip to main content
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
165 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
How Does the Level of Sacral Resection for Primary Malignant Bone Tumors Affect Physical and Mental Health, Pain, Mobility, Incontinence, and Sexual Function?
Published in
Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research, March 2016
DOI 10.1007/s11999-015-4361-3
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

En bloc resection for treatment of sacral tumors is the approach of choice for patients with resectable tumors who are well enough to undergo surgery, and studies describe patient survival, postoperative complications, and recurrence rates associated with this treatment. However, most of these studies do not provide patient-reported functional outcomes other than binary metrics for bowel and bladder function postresection. The purpose of this study was to use validated patient-reported outcomes tools to compare quality of life based on level of sacral resection in terms of (1) physical and mental health; (2) pain; (3) mobility; and (4) incontinence and sexual function. Our analysis included 33 patients (19 men, 14 women) who had a mean age of 53 years (range, 22-72 years) with a quality-of-life survey administered at a mean postoperative followup of 41 months (range, 6-123 months). The majority of patient-reported quality-of-life outcome surveys for this study were taken from the National Institute of Health's Patient Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) system. To assess physical and mental health, the PROMIS Global Items Survey with physical and mental subscores, Anxiety, and Depression scores were used. Pain outcomes were assessed using PROMIS Pain Intensity and Pain Interference surveys. Patient-reported lower extremity function was assessed using the PROMIS Mobility Survey. Patient-reported quality of life for sexual function was assessed using the PROMIS Sex Interest and Orgasm survey, whereas incontinence was measured using the International Continence Society Voiding and Incontinence scores and the Modified Obstruction and Defecation Score. Surveys were collected prospectively during clinic visits in the postoperative period. Patients were grouped by the level of osteotomy as determined by review of postoperative MRI or CT and half levels were grouped with the more cephalad level. This resulted in the inclusion of total sacrectomy (N = 6), S1 (N = 8), S2 (N = 10), S3 (N = 5), and S4 (N = 4). One-way analysis of variance tests on means or ranks were used to conduct statistical analysis between levels. Patients with more caudal resections had higher physical health (95% confidence interval [CI] total sacrectomy 36-42 versus S4 50-64, p < 0.001), less intense pain (95% CI total sacrectomy 47-60 versus S4 28-37, p < 0.001), less interference resulting from pain (95% CI total sacrectomy 58-69 versus S4 36-51, p = 0.004), higher mobility (95% CI total sacrectomy 24-46 versus S4 59-59, p = 0.002), and were more functionally able to achieve orgasm (95% CI S1 1-1 versus S4 2.2-5.3, p = 0.043). No difference was found for PROMIS Global Item Mental Health Subscore, Sex Interest, Sex Satisfaction, modified obstruction and defecation score, and International Continence Society Voiding and Incontinence although this could be the result of an inadequate sample size. Our analysis on patient-reported quality of life based on the level of bony resection in patients who underwent resection for primary sacral tumor indicates that patients with higher resections have more pain and loss of physical function in comparison to patients with lower resections. Additionally, use of the PROMIS outcomes allows for comparisons to normative data. Level III, therapeutic study.

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 165 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%
Unknown 163 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 21 13%
Student > Master 20 12%
Other 14 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 5%
Other 30 18%
Unknown 60 36%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 54 33%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 6%
Psychology 8 5%
Social Sciences 6 4%
Neuroscience 5 3%
Other 15 9%
Unknown 67 41%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 March 2018.
All research outputs
#22,714,034
of 34,360,889 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research
#6,146
of 9,301 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#197,697
of 336,341 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research
#78
of 107 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,360,889 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,301 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.6. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% 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 336,341 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 107 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.