↓ Skip to main content

Continuous passive motion for preventing venous thromboembolism after total knee arthroplasty

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
142 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
Continuous passive motion for preventing venous thromboembolism after total knee arthroplasty
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2014
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd008207.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

He ML, Xiao ZM, Lei M, Li TS, Wu H, Liao J

Abstract

Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is a common form of orthopaedic surgery. Venous thromboembolism (VTE), which consists of deep venous thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE), is a major and potentially fatal complication after TKA. The incidence of DVT after TKA is 40% to 80% and the incidence of PE is approximately 2%. It is generally agreed that thromboprophylaxis should be used in patients who undergo TKA. Both pharmacological and mechanical methods are used in the prevention of DVT. Pharmacological methods alter the blood coagulation profile and may increase the risk of bleeding complications. When pharmacological methods cannot be used the mechanical methods become crucial for VTE prophylaxis. Continuous passive motion (CPM) is provided through an external motorised device which enables a joint to move passively throughout a preset arc of motion. Despite the theoretical effectiveness and widespread use of CPM, there are still differing views on the effectiveness of CPM as prophylaxis against thrombosis after TKA. This is an update of the review first published in 2012.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Switzerland 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 137 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 26 18%
Student > Bachelor 22 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 16 11%
Researcher 13 9%
Other 47 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 80 56%
Nursing and Health Professions 16 11%
Unspecified 15 11%
Engineering 5 4%
Social Sciences 5 4%
Other 21 15%

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 27 October 2014.
All research outputs
#4,706,137
of 6,367,106 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#7,182
of 7,931 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#92,329
of 138,059 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#162
of 173 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 6,367,106 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,931 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.6. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% 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 138,059 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 173 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.