↓ Skip to main content

Surgery versus conservative treatment in patients with type A distal radius fractures, a randomized controlled trial

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, March 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
102 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
Surgery versus conservative treatment in patients with type A distal radius fractures, a randomized controlled trial
Published in
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, March 2014
DOI 10.1186/1471-2474-15-90
Pubmed ID
Authors

Monique MJ Walenkamp, J Carel Goslings, Annechien Beumer, Robert Haverlag, Peter A Leenhouts, Egbert JMM Verleisdonk, Ronald SL Liem, Jan Bernard Sintenie, Maarten WGA Bronkhorst, Jasper Winkelhagen, Niels WL Schep

Abstract

Fractures of the distal radius are common and account for an estimated 17% of all fractures diagnosed. Two-thirds of these fractures are displaced and require reduction. Although distal radius fractures, especially extra-articular fractures, are considered to be relatively harmless, inadequate treatment may result in impaired function of the wrist. Initial treatment according to Dutch guidelines consists of closed reduction and plaster immobilisation. If fracture redisplacement occurs, surgical treatment is recommended. Recently, the use of volar locking plates has become more popular. The aim of this study is to compare the functional outcome following surgical reduction and fixation with a volar locking plate with the functional outcome following closed reduction and plaster immobilisation in patients with displaced extra-articular distal radius fractures.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 102 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 <1%
Unknown 101 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 20 20%
Student > Bachelor 13 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 12%
Researcher 11 11%
Other 9 9%
Other 27 26%
Unknown 10 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 73 72%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 5%
Unspecified 3 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 2%
Sports and Recreations 2 2%
Other 6 6%
Unknown 11 11%

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 21 March 2014.
All research outputs
#3,345,140
of 5,036,026 outputs
Outputs from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#1,284
of 1,695 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#77,158
of 122,753 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#86
of 117 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 5,036,026 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,695 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.3. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% 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 122,753 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 117 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.