↓ Skip to main content

Magnetic resonance imaging, magnetic resonance arthrography and ultrasonography for assessing rotator cuff tears in people with shoulder pain for whom surgery is being considered

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2013
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 (90th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (64th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
26 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
135 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
334 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
Magnetic resonance imaging, magnetic resonance arthrography and ultrasonography for assessing rotator cuff tears in people with shoulder pain for whom surgery is being considered
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2013
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd009020.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mário Lenza, Rachelle Buchbinder, Yemisi Takwoingi, Renea V Johnston, Nigel CA Hanchard, Flávio Faloppa

Abstract

Shoulder pain is a very common symptom. Disorders of the rotator cuff tendons due to wear or tear are among the most common causes of shoulder pain and disability. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), magnetic resonance arthrography (MRA) and ultrasound (US) are increasingly being used to assess the presence and size of rotator cuff tears to assist in planning surgical treatment. It is not known whether one imaging method is superior to any of the others.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 26 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 334 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 <1%
Ireland 1 <1%
Chile 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Colombia 1 <1%
Unknown 327 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 68 20%
Student > Bachelor 43 13%
Researcher 42 13%
Student > Postgraduate 28 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 28 8%
Other 84 25%
Unknown 41 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 178 53%
Nursing and Health Professions 40 12%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 3%
Social Sciences 8 2%
Sports and Recreations 8 2%
Other 24 7%
Unknown 66 20%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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 12 September 2016.
All research outputs
#1,217,634
of 14,608,258 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3,466
of 11,027 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#15,451
of 164,549 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#38
of 108 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,608,258 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,027 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% 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 164,549 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 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 108 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 64% of its contemporaries.