↓ Skip to main content

Clinical examination of the knee: know your tools for diagnosis of knee injuries

Overview of attention for article published in Sports Medicine, Arthroscopy, Rehabilitation, Therapy & Technology, October 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
20 tweeters
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
167 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
Clinical examination of the knee: know your tools for diagnosis of knee injuries
Published in
Sports Medicine, Arthroscopy, Rehabilitation, Therapy & Technology, October 2011
DOI 10.1186/1758-2555-3-25
Pubmed ID
Authors

Roberto Rossi, Federico Dettoni, Matteo Bruzzone, Umberto Cottino, Davide G D'Elicio, Davide E Bonasia

Abstract

The clinical evaluation of the knee is a fundamental tool to correctly address diagnosis and treatment, and should never be replaced by the findings retrieved by the imaging studies carried on the patient.Every surgeon has his own series of exams with whom he is more confident and on whom he relies on for diagnosis. Usually, three sets of series are used: one for patello-femoral/extensor mechanism pathologies; one for meniscal and chondral (articular) lesions; and one for instability evaluation.This review analyses the most commonly used tests and signs for knee examination, outlining the correct way to perform the test, the correct interpretation of a positive test and the best management for evaluating an injured knee both in the acute and delayed timing.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 20 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 167 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Italy 2 1%
Austria 1 <1%
Colombia 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Serbia 1 <1%
Unknown 161 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 41 25%
Student > Master 33 20%
Other 19 11%
Student > Postgraduate 17 10%
Researcher 14 8%
Other 24 14%
Unknown 19 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 91 54%
Sports and Recreations 19 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 16 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 4%
Social Sciences 4 2%
Other 12 7%
Unknown 19 11%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. 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 18 January 2018.
All research outputs
#1,178,713
of 15,166,268 outputs
Outputs from Sports Medicine, Arthroscopy, Rehabilitation, Therapy & Technology
#3
of 62 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#8,106
of 114,364 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Sports Medicine, Arthroscopy, Rehabilitation, Therapy & Technology
#1
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,166,268 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 62 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 114,364 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.