↓ Skip to main content

Manipulative interventions for reducing pulled elbow in young children

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2012
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 (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
twitter
15 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
23 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
50 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Manipulative interventions for reducing pulled elbow in young children
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2012
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd007759.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Krul M, van der Wouden JC, van Suijlekom-Smit LW, Koes BW, Krul, Marjolein, van der Wouden, Johannes C, van Suijlekom-Smit, Lisette WA, Koes, Bart W

Abstract

Pulled elbow (nursemaid's elbow) is a common injury in young children. It results from a sudden pull on the arm, usually by an adult or taller person, which pulls the radius through the annular ligament, resulting in subluxation (partial dislocation) of the radial head. The child experiences sudden acute pain and loss of function in the affected arm. Pulled elbow is usually treated by manual reduction of the subluxed radial head. Various manoeuvres can be applied. Most textbooks recommend supination of the forearm, as opposed to pronation and other approaches. It is unclear which manoeuvre is most successful. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2009.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 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 50 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 3 6%
United States 3 6%
Spain 1 2%
Canada 1 2%
Unknown 42 84%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 12 24%
Student > Bachelor 7 14%
Researcher 4 8%
Student > Postgraduate 3 6%
Librarian 3 6%
Other 17 34%
Unknown 4 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 29 58%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 8%
Social Sciences 3 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 6%
Psychology 1 2%
Other 4 8%
Unknown 6 12%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 24. 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 31 July 2020.
All research outputs
#957,814
of 16,699,900 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,577
of 11,574 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6,111
of 127,222 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#10
of 119 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,699,900 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,574 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 24.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% 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 127,222 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 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 119 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 91% of its contemporaries.