↓ 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
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
201 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

Mao Lin He, Zeng Ming Xiao, Ming Lei, Ting Song Li, Hao Wu, Jun Liao

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 198 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 36 18%
Student > Bachelor 28 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 23 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 21 10%
Researcher 20 10%
Other 37 18%
Unknown 36 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 88 44%
Nursing and Health Professions 35 17%
Social Sciences 7 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 3%
Other 13 6%
Unknown 46 23%

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
#10,024,037
of 12,527,219 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#8,646
of 8,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#129,142
of 193,051 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#195
of 209 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,527,219 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 8,923 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.2. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% 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 193,051 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 209 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.