↓ Skip to main content

Arthroscopic Partial Meniscectomy versus Sham Surgery for a Degenerative Meniscal Tear

Overview of attention for article published in New England Journal of Medicine, December 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Citations

dimensions_citation
386 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
719 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
Title
Arthroscopic Partial Meniscectomy versus Sham Surgery for a Degenerative Meniscal Tear
Published in
New England Journal of Medicine, December 2013
DOI 10.1056/nejmoa1305189
Pubmed ID
Authors

Raine Sihvonen, Mika Paavola, Antti Malmivaara, Ari Itälä, Antti Joukainen, Heikki Nurmi, Juha Kalske, Teppo L.N. Järvinen

Abstract

Arthroscopic partial meniscectomy is one of the most common orthopedic procedures, yet rigorous evidence of its efficacy is lacking.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 1,028 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 719 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 17 2%
United Kingdom 3 <1%
Brazil 3 <1%
Finland 3 <1%
Norway 2 <1%
Spain 2 <1%
Denmark 2 <1%
Canada 2 <1%
Andorra 1 <1%
Other 11 2%
Unknown 673 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 122 17%
Other 113 16%
Student > Master 103 14%
Student > Bachelor 76 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 71 10%
Other 234 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 420 58%
Unspecified 86 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 72 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 33 5%
Sports and Recreations 29 4%
Other 79 11%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1740. 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 13 September 2019.
All research outputs
#1,111
of 13,533,559 outputs
Outputs from New England Journal of Medicine
#59
of 25,603 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#23
of 254,493 outputs
Outputs of similar age from New England Journal of Medicine
#2
of 299 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,533,559 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 25,603 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 63.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 254,493 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 299 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 99% of its contemporaries.