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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Cost-effectiveness of surgical interventions for the management of osteoarthritis: a systematic review of the literature
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, May 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12891-017-1540-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Hanin Kamaruzaman, Philip Kinghorn, Raymond Oppong |
| Abstract |
The primary purpose of this study is to assess the existing evidence on the cost-effectiveness of surgical interventions for the management of knee and hip osteoarthritis by systematically reviewing published economic evaluation studies. A systematic review was conducted for the period 2004 to 2016. Electronic databases were searched to identify both trial and model based economic evaluation studies that evaluated surgical interventions for knee and hip osteoarthritis. A total of 23 studies met the inclusion criteria and an assessment of these studies showed that total knee arthroplasty (TKA), and total hip arthroplasty (THA) showed evidence of cost-effectiveness and improvement in quality of life of the patients when compared to non-operative and non-surgical procedures. On the other hand, even though delaying TKA and THA may lead to some cost savings in the short-run, the results from the study showed that this was not a cost-effective option. TKA and THA are cost-effective and should be recommended for the management of patients with end stage/severe knee and hip OA. However, there needs to be additional studies to assess the cost-effectiveness of other surgical interventions in order for definite conclusions to be reached. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 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 Kingdom | 2 | 17% |
| United States | 2 | 17% |
| Chile | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 7 | 58% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 9 | 75% |
| Scientists | 2 | 17% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 8% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 198 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 198 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 19 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 18 | 9% |
| Student > Master | 16 | 8% |
| Other | 15 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 15 | 8% |
| Other | 36 | 18% |
| Unknown | 79 | 40% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 63 | 32% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 16 | 8% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 5 | 3% |
| Social Sciences | 4 | 2% |
| Sports and Recreations | 4 | 2% |
| Other | 18 | 9% |
| Unknown | 88 | 44% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 25. 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 17 August 2019.
All research outputs
#1,370,661
of 23,630,563 outputs
Outputs from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#257
of 4,159 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#28,152
of 311,748 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#10
of 90 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,630,563 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,159 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 311,748 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 90 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 90% of its contemporaries.