↓ Skip to main content

Physical function and pain after surgical or conservative management of multiple rib fractures – a follow-up study

Overview of attention for article published in Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine, October 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
27 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
86 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
Physical function and pain after surgical or conservative management of multiple rib fractures – a follow-up study
Published in
Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine, October 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13049-016-0322-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Monika Fagevik Olsén, Margareta Slobo, Lena Klarin, Eva-Corina Caragounis, David Pazooki, Hans Granhed

Abstract

There is scarce knowledge of physical function and pain due to multiple rib fractures following trauma. The purpose of this follow-up was to assess respiratory and physical function, pain, range of movement and kinesiophobia in patients with multiple rib fractures who had undergone stabilizing surgery and compare with conservatively managed patients. A consecutive series of 31 patients with multiple rib fractures who had undergone stabilizing surgery were assessed >1 year after the trauma concerning respiratory and physical function, pain, range of movement in the shoulders and thorax, shoulder function and kinesiophobia. For comparison, 30 patients who were treated conservatively were evaluated with the same outcome measures. The results concerning pain, lung function, shoulder function and level of physical activity were similar in the two groups. The patients who had undergone surgery had a significantly larger range of motion in the thorax (p < 0.01) and less deterioration in two items in Disability Rating Index (sitting and standing bent over a sink) (p < 0.05). It is questionable whether the control group is representative since the majority of patients were invited but refused to participate in the follow-up. In addition, this study is too small to make a definitive conclusion if surgery is better than conservative treatment. But we see some indications, such as a tendency for decreased pain, better thoracic range of motion and physical function which would indicate that surgery is preferable. If operation technique could improve in the future with a less invasive approach, it would presumably decrease post-operative pain and the benefit of surgery would be greater than the morbidity of surgery. Patients undergoing surgery have a similar long-term recovery to those who are treated conservatively except for a better range of motion in the thorax and fewer limitations in physical function. Surgery seems to be beneficial for some patients, the question remains which patients. FoU i Sverige (R&D in Sweden), No 106121.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 86 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 86 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 15 17%
Student > Bachelor 13 15%
Other 6 7%
Researcher 5 6%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 6%
Other 11 13%
Unknown 31 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 31 36%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 10%
Psychology 3 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 2%
Computer Science 1 1%
Other 4 5%
Unknown 36 42%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 April 2017.
All research outputs
#8,442,177
of 9,679,413 outputs
Outputs from Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine
#635
of 679 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#221,709
of 264,040 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine
#37
of 37 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 9,679,413 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 679 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.2. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 264,040 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 37 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.