↓ Skip to main content

Platelet-rich plasma vs hyaluronic acid to treat knee degenerative pathology: study design and preliminary results of a randomized controlled trial

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, November 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
204 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
229 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
Platelet-rich plasma vs hyaluronic acid to treat knee degenerative pathology: study design and preliminary results of a randomized controlled trial
Published in
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, November 2012
DOI 10.1186/1471-2474-13-229
Pubmed ID
Authors

Giuseppe Filardo, Elizaveta Kon, Alessandro Di Martino, Berardo Di Matteo, Maria Letizia Merli, Annarita Cenacchi, Pier Maria Fornasari, Maurilio Marcacci

Abstract

Platelet rich plasma (PRP), a blood-derived product rich in growth factors, is a promising treatment for cartilage defects but there is still a lack of clinical evidence. The aim of this study is to show, through a randomized double blind prospective trial, the efficacy of this procedure, by comparing PRP to Hyaluronic Acid (HA) injections for the treatment of knee chondropathy or osteoarthritis (OA).

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 229 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 1%
United Kingdom 3 1%
Spain 2 <1%
Mexico 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Greece 1 <1%
Korea, Republic of 1 <1%
Unknown 217 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 38 17%
Student > Master 32 14%
Other 28 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 23 10%
Student > Postgraduate 22 10%
Other 63 28%
Unknown 23 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 124 54%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 12 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 5%
Engineering 9 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 3%
Other 27 12%
Unknown 38 17%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 15 April 2014.
All research outputs
#2,944,954
of 12,254,406 outputs
Outputs from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#635
of 2,428 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#65,014
of 280,331 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#27
of 124 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,254,406 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,428 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% 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 280,331 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 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 124 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.