| Title |
Comparative effectiveness of open versus minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Medical Devices : Evidence and Research, June 2014
|
| DOI | 10.2147/mder.s60370 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Charles GT Ledonio, David W Polly, Marc F Swiontkowski, John T Cummings |
| Abstract |
The mainstay of sacroiliac joint disruption/degenerative sacroiliitis therapy has been nonoperative management. This nonoperative management often includes a regimen of physical therapy, chiropractic treatment, therapeutic injections, and possibly radiofrequency ablation at the discretion of the treating physician. When these clinical treatments fail, sacroiliac joint fusion has been recommended as the standard treatment. Open and minimally invasive (MIS) surgical techniques are typical procedures. This study aims to compare the perioperative measures and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) outcomes associated with each of these techniques. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 60 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 60 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 9 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 8 | 13% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 7 | 12% |
| Other | 6 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 7% |
| Other | 12 | 20% |
| Unknown | 14 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 31 | 52% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 7% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 5% |
| Engineering | 2 | 3% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 3 | 5% |
| Unknown | 16 | 27% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 15 August 2017.
All research outputs
#7,387,249
of 25,457,858 outputs
Outputs from Medical Devices : Evidence and Research
#92
of 314 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#66,045
of 241,056 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Medical Devices : Evidence and Research
#7
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,858 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 314 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% 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 241,056 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 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 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 58% of its contemporaries.