↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Article Metrics

Chronic infections in hip arthroplasties: comparing risk of reinfection following one-stage and two-stage revision: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Epidemiology, April 2012
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
112 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
94 Mendeley
Title
Chronic infections in hip arthroplasties: comparing risk of reinfection following one-stage and two-stage revision: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Published in
Clinical Epidemiology, April 2012
DOI 10.2147/clep.s29025
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jeppe Lange, Troelsen, Reimar Thomsen, Soballe

Abstract

Two-stage revision is regarded by many as the best treatment of chronic infection in hip arthroplasties. Some international reports, however, have advocated one-stage revision. No systematic review or meta-analysis has ever compared the risk of reinfection following one-stage and two-stage revisions for chronic infection in hip arthroplasties.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 94 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 1%
United States 1 1%
Unknown 92 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 13 14%
Researcher 12 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 11%
Student > Master 9 10%
Other 22 23%
Unknown 16 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 51 54%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 4%
Engineering 3 3%
Materials Science 2 2%
Other 8 9%
Unknown 22 23%

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 27 March 2012.
All research outputs
#3,541,967
of 4,507,072 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Epidemiology
#110
of 133 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#58,666
of 75,177 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Epidemiology
#16
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 4,507,072 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 133 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.9. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 75,177 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 23 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.