↓ Skip to main content

Comparison of single and dual growing rods in the treatment of early onset scoliosis: a meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
23 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
27 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
Comparison of single and dual growing rods in the treatment of early onset scoliosis: a meta-analysis
Published in
Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research, July 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13018-016-0413-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gui-Jun Xu, Xin Fu, Peng Tian, Jian-xiong Ma, Xin-long Ma

Abstract

The growing rod technique was applied in the treatment of early onset scoliosis (EOS) with promising outcomes and many complications at the same time. We reviewed data from literatures to compare the results of single growing rods with dual growing rods to achieve a clear understanding of this technique. PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE, ScienceDirect, CNKI, Wanfang Data, and CQVIP were searched electronically until March 2016 using "growing rod" and "early onset scoliosis" as major search terms. Also, we manually searched other relevant conference proceedings. Two reviewers independently finished methodological quality assessment, data extraction, and calculations. Six retrospective trials were adopted in data analysis including 126 and 119 patients in the single and dual rod groups, respectively. Significantly better coronal correction rates were observed immediately after the initial operation (MD = -14.67; 95 % CI -20.97 to -8.37; P < 0.01; I (2) = 0 %) and at the final follow-up (MD = -23.70; 95 % CI -45.87 to -1.52; P = 0.04; I (2) = 82 %) in the dual rod group. Similarly, better lengthening of the T1-S1 height occurred in the dual rod group immediately after the initial operation (MD = -1.74; 95 % CI -2.62 to -0.85; P < 0.01; I (2) = 0 %) and at final follow-up (MD = -3.8; 95 % CI -5.56 to -2.04; P < 0.001; I (2) = 36 %). There were more complications about the implant in the single rod group, while wound problems were common in the other group. The data of the current meta-analysis showed advantages in the coronal correction rate and lengthening by dual growing rods with fewer implant-related complications and more wound complications.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

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 4 15%
Student > Bachelor 4 15%
Student > Master 4 15%
Student > Postgraduate 3 11%
Other 5 19%
Unknown 3 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 41%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 11%
Engineering 2 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 4%
Other 2 7%
Unknown 5 19%
Attention Score in Context

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 13 July 2016.
All research outputs
#18,465,988
of 22,880,691 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research
#947
of 1,378 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#271,101
of 354,439 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research
#25
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,880,691 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 1,378 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.6. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% 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 354,439 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.