↓ Skip to main content

Biomechanical comparison of different combinations of hook and screw in one spine motion unit - an experiment in porcine model

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

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
16 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
Biomechanical comparison of different combinations of hook and screw in one spine motion unit - an experiment in porcine model
Published in
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, June 2014
DOI 10.1186/1471-2474-15-197
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ching-Lung Tai, Li-Huei Chen, De-Mei Lee, Mu-Yi Liu, Po-Liang Lai

Abstract

The biomechanical performance of the hooks and screws in spinal posterior instrumentation is not well-characterized. Screw-bone interface failure at the uppermost and lowermost vertebrae is not uncommon. Some have advocated for the use of supplement hooks to prevent screw loosening. However, studies describing methods for combined hook and screw systems that fully address the benefits of these systems are lacking. Thus, the choice of which implant to use in a given case is often based solely on a surgeon's experience instead of on the biomechanical features and advantages of each device.

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 16 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 16 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 3 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 19%
Researcher 2 13%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 6%
Other 3 19%
Unknown 2 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 38%
Engineering 4 25%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 6%
Computer Science 1 6%
Unspecified 1 6%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 3 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 29 September 2014.
All research outputs
#2,670,587
of 5,037,615 outputs
Outputs from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#1,105
of 1,695 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#61,474
of 124,441 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#78
of 114 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 5,037,615 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% 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 21st percentile – i.e., 21% 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 124,441 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 114 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.