↓ Skip to main content

Management of melioidosis osteomyelitis and septic arthritis

Overview of attention for article published in The Bone & Joint Journal, February 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
5 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 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
Management of melioidosis osteomyelitis and septic arthritis
Published in
The Bone & Joint Journal, February 2015
DOI 10.1302/0301-620x.97b2.34799
Pubmed ID
Authors

R. P. Shetty, M. Mathew, J. Smith, L. P. Morse, J. A. Mehta, B. J. Currie

Abstract

Little information is available about several important aspects of the treatment of melioidosis osteomyelitis and septic arthritis. We undertook a retrospective review of 50 patients with these conditions in an attempt to determine the effect of location of the disease, type of surgical intervention and duration of antibiotic treatment on outcome, particularly complications and relapse. We found that there was a 27.5% risk of osteomyelitis of the adjacent bone in patients with septic arthritis in the lower limb. Patients with septic arthritis and osteomyelitis of an adjacent bone were in hospital significantly longer (p = 0.001), needed more operations (p = 0.031) and had a significantly higher rate of complications and re-presentation (p = 0.048). More than half the patients (61%), most particularly those with multifocal bone and joint involvement, and those with septic arthritis and osteomyelitis of an adjacent bone who were treated operatively, needed more visits to theatre. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:277-82.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 tweeters 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 %
Student > Master 4 25%
Student > Postgraduate 3 19%
Student > Bachelor 2 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 6%
Other 1 6%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 5 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 50%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 6%
Decision Sciences 1 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 6%
Unknown 5 31%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 02 March 2015.
All research outputs
#3,954,290
of 13,402,517 outputs
Outputs from The Bone & Joint Journal
#1,110
of 3,063 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#79,348
of 278,742 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The Bone & Joint Journal
#25
of 37 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,402,517 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,063 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its peers.
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 278,742 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 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 37 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.