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 |
What is the evidence base to guide surgical treatment of infected hip prostheses? systematic review of longitudinal studies in unselected patients
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medicine, February 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1741-7015-10-18 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Andrew D Beswick, Karen T Elvers, Alison J Smith, Rachael Gooberman-Hill, Andrew Lovering, Ashley W Blom |
| Abstract |
Prosthetic joint infection is an uncommon but serious complication of hip replacement. There are two main surgical treatment options, with the choice largely based on the preference of the surgeon. Evidence is required regarding the comparative effectiveness of one-stage and two-stage revision to prevent reinfection after prosthetic joint infection. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 94 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | 1% |
| Brazil | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 92 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 12 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 12 | 13% |
| Researcher | 11 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 9 | 10% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 8 | 9% |
| Other | 20 | 21% |
| Unknown | 22 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 50 | 53% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 3% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 2 | 2% |
| Linguistics | 2 | 2% |
| Engineering | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 6 | 6% |
| Unknown | 29 | 31% |
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 28 February 2012.
All research outputs
#18,304,874
of 22,663,150 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#3,172
of 3,397 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#120,642
of 155,000 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#32
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,663,150 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 3,397 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 43.6. 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 155,000 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 33 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.