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.
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Bisphosphonates or prostacyclin in the treatment of bone-marrow oedema syndrome of the knee and foot
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Rheumatology International, November 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00296-012-2584-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Clemens Baier, Jens Schaumburger, Jürgen Götz, Guido Heers, Thorsten Schmidt, Joachim Grifka, Johannes Beckmann |
| Abstract |
Bone-marrow oedema (BME) represents a reversible but mostly painful increase in interstitial fluid. The exact pathogenetic processes still remain unknown. Treatment options are mainly symptomatic with core decompression as golden standard leading to immediate pain relieve. Recently, it has been shown that intravenous prostacyclin and bisphosphonates are useful in achieving a reduction in BME with a considerable improvement in the accompanying symptoms. We compared the outcome of both intravenously applied prostacyclin (Ilomedin(®), 10 patients) and bisphosphonate (Bondronat(®), 10 patients) in treatment of BME of the knee and foot. We could find a significant improvement of WOMAC score, SF-36 score and VAS 3 months and 1 year after therapeutic intervention in both the prostacyclin and the bisphosphonate group. Concerning the MRI scans in both groups, we found a distinct reduction of BME in 47 % and a complete regression in 40 %. Comparing both groups, the improvement of the scores was greater in the prostacyclin group than in the bisphosphonate group; the difference, however, was not significant. Intravenous bisphosphonates as well as prostacyclin are of efficient therapeutic benefit in treatment of BME with a quicker and greater effect of prostacyclin. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 51 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 51 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 5 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 11 | 22% |
| Unknown | 19 | 37% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 18 | 35% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 10% |
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 1 | 2% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 2% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 5 | 10% |
| Unknown | 20 | 39% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 01 December 2014.
All research outputs
#4,094,977
of 22,745,803 outputs
Outputs from Rheumatology International
#352
of 2,175 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#30,552
of 180,909 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Rheumatology International
#4
of 27 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,745,803 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,175 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% 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 180,909 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 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 27 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.