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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Comparison of TPLO tibial tuberosity fractures with and without an in situ rotational pin
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Research Notes, June 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13104-018-3474-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Matthew J. Morgan, Jean K. Frazho |
| Abstract |
Cranial cruciate ligament (CCL) rupture is a common cause of pelvic limb lameness in dogs. The tibial plateau leveling osteotomy (TPLO) is a well-described surgical procedure that treats CCL ruptures. The objective of this study was to compare the risk of tibial tuberosity fractures from TPLO procedures using a TPLO reduction pin in situ versus patients with a TPLO reduction pin removed at the time of surgery. Our hypothesis is that patients with a TPLO reduction pin left in situ will have a decreased incidence of tibial tuberosity fractures. A total of 400 dogs that fitted the criteria of 200 consecutive TPLO surgeries performed with each group were included in the study. The Student's t-test revealed a statistically significant difference in fractures observed in group 1 (in situ pin) and group 2 (no pin). In univariate logistic regression analysis, only the covariate for the presence of the reduction pin was associated with a statistically significant reduction in the likelihood of tibial tuberosity fracture. In the multivariate model, the presence of the reduction pin was associated with an approximate 92% reduction in the likelihood of tibial tuberosity fracture. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 27 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 27 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 4 | 15% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 11% |
| Researcher | 3 | 11% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 2 | 7% |
| Unknown | 10 | 37% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 10 | 37% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 15% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 4% |
| Engineering | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 11 | 41% |
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 14 June 2018.
All research outputs
#20,522,137
of 23,090,520 outputs
Outputs from BMC Research Notes
#3,583
of 4,287 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#288,643
of 328,957 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Research Notes
#103
of 128 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,090,520 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,287 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.6. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 328,957 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 128 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.