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 |
Healing of rotator cuff tendons using botulinum toxin A and immobilization in a rat model
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, March 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12891-016-0978-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Mohit N. Gilotra, Michael J. Shorofsky, Jason A. Stein, Anand M. Murthi |
| Abstract |
We evaluated effects of botulinum toxin A (Botox) and cast immobilization on tendon healing in a rat model. Injection of Botox into rat supraspinatus was hypothesized to reduce muscle active force and improved healing. Eighty-four supraspinatus tendons were surgically transected and repaired in 42 Sprague-Dawley rats (transosseous technique). After repair, supraspinatus muscle was injected with saline or Botox (3 or 6 U/kg). Half the shoulders were cast-immobilized for the entire postoperative period; half were allowed free cage activity. Histology was examined at 2, 4, 8, and 12 weeks. A healing zone cross-sectional area was measured, and biomechanical testing of repair strength and tendon viscoelastic properties was conducted at 4 and 12 weeks. Botox alone and cast immobilization alone exhibited increased ultimate load compared with controls (saline injection, no immobilization) at 4 weeks. No difference in ultimate load occurred between Botox-only and cast-only groups. At 12 weeks, the Botox (6 U/kg) plus cast immobilization group was significantly weakest (p < 0.05). A trend was shown toward decreased healing zone cross-sectional areas in casted groups. Supraspinatus Botox injection after rotator cuff repair might help protect the repair. However, cast immobilization plus Botox administration is harmful to rotator cuff healing in a rat tendon model. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 | 50% |
| Chile | 1 | 25% |
| Ireland | 1 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 2 | 50% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 25% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 40 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 18% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 15% |
| Researcher | 5 | 13% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 8% |
| Lecturer | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 8 | 20% |
| Unknown | 9 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 14 | 35% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 6 | 15% |
| Engineering | 5 | 13% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 3% |
| Chemical Engineering | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 2 | 5% |
| Unknown | 11 | 28% |
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 08 June 2018.
All research outputs
#13,228,333
of 22,856,968 outputs
Outputs from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#1,829
of 4,051 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#140,707
of 299,392 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#33
of 89 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,856,968 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,051 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% 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 299,392 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 52% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 89 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its contemporaries.