↓ Skip to main content

Extramedullary versus intramedullary tibial cutting guides in megaprosthetic total knee replacement

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research, January 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

facebook
2 Facebook pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Readers on

mendeley
32 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
Extramedullary versus intramedullary tibial cutting guides in megaprosthetic total knee replacement
Published in
Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research, January 2012
DOI 10.1186/1749-799x-7-33
Pubmed ID
Authors

Vikas Karade, B Ravi, Manish Agarwal

Abstract

In a standard total knee replacement, tibial component alignment is a key factor for the long term success of the surgery. The purpose of this study is to compare the accuracy of extramedullary and intramedullary tibial cutting guides used in indigenous and imported implants respectively, in positioning of the tibial components in megaprosthetic knee replacements.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 32 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
India 1 3%
Canada 1 3%
Unknown 30 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 5 16%
Researcher 4 13%
Student > Postgraduate 3 9%
Other 2 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 6%
Other 10 31%
Unknown 6 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 47%
Engineering 3 9%
Psychology 2 6%
Computer Science 2 6%
Sports and Recreations 1 3%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 7 22%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 October 2012.
All research outputs
#6,797,581
of 11,875,159 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research
#155
of 566 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#59,989
of 120,842 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research
#3
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 11,875,159 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 566 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% 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 120,842 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.