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 |
Functional evaluation for patients with lower extremity sarcoma: application of the Chinese version of Musculoskeletal Tumor Society scoring system
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, May 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12955-017-0685-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Leilei Xu, Xinhua Li, Zhou Wang, Jin Xiong, Shoufeng Wang |
| Abstract |
The Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) scoring system is a disease-specific instrument to determine the physical and mental health for patients with extremity sarcoma. This study aims to investigate the reliability and validity of the Chinese version of the MSTS, and to evaluate functional outcomes of the surgical treatment of lower extremity sarcoma using the Chinese MSTS. A cohort of 98 patients who had undergone surgery for lower extremity sarcoma were included. All the patients completed the clinical assessment with the Chinese MSTS and the Chinese Toronto Extremity Salvage Score (TESS). Assessment of psychometric properties was carried out through reliability and validity test. The reliability of Chinese MSTS was evaluated through test-retest analysis, inter-observer analysis and internal consistency. The inter-observer and test-retest reliability was analyzed with intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC). The internal consistency was evaluated by Cronbach's α, with a value >0.70 considered acceptable. The discriminant validity was evaluated through comparison of the MSTS score between patients undergoing amputation surgeries and those undergoing limb-salvage surgeries. The construct validity was evaluated with the factor analysis. The mean MSTS score was 21.5 ± 7.1. The ICC was 0.91 (95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.85-0.96) for the test-retest reliability and 0.90 (95% CI = 0.86-0.93) for the inter-observer analysis. The test for internal consistency showed a Cronbach's α of 0.86 for the MSTS. Patients undergoing amputation surgery had remarkably lower MSTS score than patients undergoing limb-salvage surgeries (18.8 ± 5.4 vs. 23.5 ± 6.3, p = 0.005), which indicated a good discrinimant validity of the Chinese MSTS. The factor analysis indicated a 1-factor model with acceptable goodness of fit. The Chinese MSTS scoring system is a reliable and valid instrument with well-accepted psychometric properties. Through application of the Chinese MSTS, we demonstrated that patients receiving limb-salvage surgeries may have better functional outcome and QoL than those undergoing amputation surgeries. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 78 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 78 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 15 | 19% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 8% |
| Researcher | 5 | 6% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 5 | 6% |
| Other | 15 | 19% |
| Unknown | 24 | 31% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 35 | 45% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 9 | 12% |
| Psychology | 2 | 3% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 1% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 4 | 5% |
| Unknown | 26 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 14 October 2020.
All research outputs
#3,092,520
of 22,973,051 outputs
Outputs from Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
#251
of 2,184 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#58,603
of 312,883 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
#8
of 73 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,973,051 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,184 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 312,883 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 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 73 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.