↓ Skip to main content
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 (91st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (74th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
36 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
video
1 YouTube creator

Readers on

mendeley
84 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
The Incidence of Glenohumeral Bone and Cartilage Lesions at the Time of Anterior Shoulder Stabilization Surgery: A Comparison of Patients Undergoing Primary and Revision Surgery
Published in
The American Journal of Sports Medicine, July 2018
DOI 10.1177/0363546518781331
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Intra-articular glenohumeral joint changes frequently occur after shoulder instability events. (1) To compare demographic characteristics, baseline patient-reported outcomes, and intraoperative findings for patients undergoing primary or revision shoulder stabilization surgery and (2) to determine the incidence of glenohumeral bone and cartilage lesions in this population while identifying factors independently associated with these lesions. Cross-sectional study; Level of evidence, 3. The Multicenter Orthopaedic Outcomes Network (MOON) Shoulder Group shoulder instability database was used to identify all prospectively enrolled patients undergoing shoulder stabilization surgery for anterior instability between October 2012 and September 2016. Any patient who underwent surgery for posterior or multidirectional shoulder instability or concomitant rotator cuff repair surgery was excluded. Patient demographic characteristics, preoperative patient-reported outcomes, and intraoperative findings, including glenohumeral bone and cartilage lesions, were compared for patients undergoing primary and revision shoulder stabilization surgery. Additionally, patients with and without glenohumeral bone and cartilage lesions were compared and independent associations determined using multivariate analysis. There were 545 patients available for analysis (461/545 [84.6%] primary; 84/545 [15.4%] revision). Patients undergoing revision surgery were older ( P = .001), were more frequently smokers ( P = .022), had a greater number of instability events before surgery ( P = .047), more frequently required reduction assistance ( P < .001), and had lower Short Form-36 (SF-36) Mental Component Summary ( P = .020) and Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index (WOSI) ( P = .026) scores preoperatively. Additionally, patients undergoing revision surgery had a higher frequency of bone and cartilage lesions than those undergoing primary surgery (47.6% vs 18.4%, respectively; P < .001). Male sex, revision surgery, black race, increasing body mass index, increasing patient age, and lower preoperative SF-36 Physical Component Summary score were independently associated with the presence of glenohumeral bone and cartilage lesions at the time of shoulder stabilization surgery. Revision surgery was strongly associated with the presence of glenohumeral bone and cartilage lesions (odds ratio [OR], 4.381 [95% CI, 2.591-7.406]) and glenoid bone loss greater than 10% (OR, 9.643 [95% CI, 5.128-18.134]) or 20% (OR, 13.076 [95% CI, 5.113-33.438]) of the glenoid width. Glenohumeral bone and cartilage lesions are common at the time of shoulder stabilization surgery, occurring more frequently in patients undergoing revision surgery as compared with primary surgery. On the basis of these findings, future prospective studies should aim to compare the clinical outcomes in these 2 groups.

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 36 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 84 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 84 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 9 11%
Researcher 9 11%
Student > Bachelor 8 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 6%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 6%
Other 13 15%
Unknown 35 42%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 20 24%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 15%
Computer Science 2 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 1%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 1%
Other 2 2%
Unknown 45 54%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 25. 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 29 January 2020.
All research outputs
#1,945,495
of 34,259,606 outputs
Outputs from The American Journal of Sports Medicine
#823
of 6,801 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#30,430
of 370,954 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The American Journal of Sports Medicine
#19
of 74 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,259,606 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,801 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% 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 370,954 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 74 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.