| Title |
Racial Differences in Pelvic Anatomy by Magnetic Resonance Imaging
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Obstetrics & Gynecology, April 2008
|
| DOI | 10.1097/aog.0b013e318169ce03 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Victoria L. Handa, Mark E. Lockhart, Julia R. Fielding, Catherine S. Bradley, Linda Brubaker, Geoffrey W. Cundiff, Wen Ye, Holly E. Richter |
| Abstract |
To use static and dynamic magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to compare dimensions of the bony pelvis and soft tissue structures in a sample of African-American and white women. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 67 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 18 | 27% |
| Congo, The Democratic Republic of the | 2 | 3% |
| North Macedonia | 1 | 1% |
| Israel | 1 | 1% |
| Japan | 1 | 1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 43 | 64% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 65 | 97% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 3% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 116 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 114 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 15 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 15 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 13 | 11% |
| Researcher | 10 | 9% |
| Other | 8 | 7% |
| Other | 23 | 20% |
| Unknown | 32 | 28% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 45 | 39% |
| Engineering | 11 | 9% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 4% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 3% |
| Social Sciences | 4 | 3% |
| Other | 10 | 9% |
| Unknown | 37 | 32% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 60. 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 20 April 2024.
All research outputs
#725,596
of 25,768,270 outputs
Outputs from Obstetrics & Gynecology
#506
of 8,978 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,365
of 96,810 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Obstetrics & Gynecology
#3
of 42 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,768,270 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,978 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 96,810 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 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 42 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.