↓ Skip to main content

Effectiveness of prolonged use of continuous passive motion (CPM) as an adjunct to physiotherapy following total knee arthroplasty: Design of a randomised controlled trial [ISRCTN85759656]

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, February 2006
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
104 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
Effectiveness of prolonged use of continuous passive motion (CPM) as an adjunct to physiotherapy following total knee arthroplasty: Design of a randomised controlled trial [ISRCTN85759656]
Published in
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, February 2006
DOI 10.1186/1471-2474-7-15
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anton F Lenssen, Yvonne HF Crijns, Eddie MH Waltjé, George M Roox, Mike JA van Steyn, Ruud JT Geesink, Piet A van den Brandt, Rob A de Bie

Abstract

Adequate and intensive rehabilitation is an important requirement for successful Total Knee Arthroplasty. The primary focus of early rehabilitation is ambulation of patients and regaining range of motion in the knee. Although research suggests that Continuous Passive Motion should be implemented in the first rehabilitation phase following surgery, there is substantial debate about the duration of each session and the total period of CPM application and. A Cochrane review on this topic concluded that short-term use of CPM leads to greater short-term range of motion. It also suggested, however, that future research should concentrate on the treatment period during which CPM should be administered.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 104 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 2%
Japan 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Unknown 99 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 19 18%
Student > Bachelor 14 13%
Researcher 13 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 9%
Other 19 18%
Unknown 20 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 40 38%
Nursing and Health Professions 21 20%
Engineering 5 5%
Sports and Recreations 5 5%
Social Sciences 4 4%
Other 9 9%
Unknown 20 19%

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 04 April 2014.
All research outputs
#9,906,366
of 12,373,620 outputs
Outputs from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#1,944
of 2,454 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#131,357
of 193,777 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#14
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,373,620 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,454 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.8. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% 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 193,777 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.