↓ Skip to main content

Is use of fall risk-increasing drugs in an elderly population associated with an increased risk of hip fracture, after adjustment for multimorbidity level: a cohort study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Geriatrics, December 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (53rd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
76 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
126 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
Is use of fall risk-increasing drugs in an elderly population associated with an increased risk of hip fracture, after adjustment for multimorbidity level: a cohort study
Published in
BMC Geriatrics, December 2014
DOI 10.1186/1471-2318-14-131
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kristine Thorell, Karin Ranstad, Patrik Midlöv, Lars Borgquist, Anders Halling

Abstract

Risk factors for hip fracture are well studied because of the negative impact on patients and the community, with mortality in the first year being almost 30% in the elderly. Age, gender and fall risk-increasing drugs, identified by the National Board of Health and Welfare in Sweden, are well known risk factors for hip fracture, but how multimorbidity level affects the risk of hip fracture during use of fall risk-increasing drugs is to our knowledge not as well studied. This study explored the relationship between use of fall risk-increasing drugs in combination with multimorbidity level and risk of hip fracture in an elderly population.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 126 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Unknown 124 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 17 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 13%
Researcher 14 11%
Student > Bachelor 13 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 8%
Other 28 22%
Unknown 28 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 46 37%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 10%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 12 10%
Neuroscience 5 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 4%
Other 14 11%
Unknown 32 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 03 December 2017.
All research outputs
#7,878,286
of 23,881,329 outputs
Outputs from BMC Geriatrics
#1,863
of 3,241 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#110,369
of 366,201 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Geriatrics
#18
of 27 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,881,329 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,241 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.0. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% 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 366,201 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 27 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.