↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

A retrospective study of patient outcomes and satisfaction following pinnaplasty

Overview of attention for article published in Patient related outcome measures, May 2016
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

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
28 Mendeley
Title
A retrospective study of patient outcomes and satisfaction following pinnaplasty
Published in
Patient related outcome measures, May 2016
DOI 10.2147/prom.s99622
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nicholas Hope, Caroline P Smith, Jim R Cullen, Neil McCluney

Abstract

Up to 5% of all children have prominent ears. Psychological distress and bullying adversely affect these children and can cause significant social exclusion. In times of austerity, cosmetic procedures such as surgical correction of prominent ears are felt to be an unnecessary cost to the health service. A retrospective case note review of all patients undergoing pinnaplasty was undertaken. Postoperative outcomes were compared against the Royal College of Surgeons of England standards. The Glasgow Benefit Inventory, a validated post-intervention questionnaire, was then posted out to all patients. A total of 72 patients were identified. Average age at procedure was 13 years. Eleven patients were above the age of 19 years. Twenty-eight patients were male and forty-four female. Sixty-two cases underwent bilateral pinnaplasty. No patients developed hematoma, and there were no readmissions within 30 days of surgery. Twenty-nine patients responded to the questionnaire (40%), of whom 27 reported a positive impact on their psychosocial well-being with a mean score of 36. Pinnaplasty offers patients an opportunity to alleviate the psychological distress of bullying and harassment secondary to the appearance of prominent ears.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users 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 28 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 28 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 5 18%
Researcher 3 11%
Other 2 7%
Librarian 2 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 7%
Other 5 18%
Unknown 9 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 29%
Psychology 5 18%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 4%
Social Sciences 1 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 4%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 12 43%
Attention Score in Context

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 18 June 2016.
All research outputs
#16,048,318
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Patient related outcome measures
#93
of 196 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#171,096
of 311,862 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Patient related outcome measures
#4
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 196 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% 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 311,862 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.