| 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, March 2012
|
| DOI | 10.2147/clep.s29025 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jeppe Lange, Anders Troelsen, Reimar W Thomsen, Kjeld Søballe |
| 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. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 110 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 | 108 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 15 | 14% |
| Other | 13 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 13 | 12% |
| Student > Master | 9 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 9 | 8% |
| Other | 23 | 21% |
| Unknown | 28 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 51 | 46% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 4% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 4 | 4% |
| Engineering | 4 | 4% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 11 | 10% |
| Unknown | 34 | 31% |
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
#20,823,121
of 25,584,565 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Epidemiology
#620
of 780 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#132,340
of 168,428 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Epidemiology
#5
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,584,565 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 780 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.7. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% 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 168,428 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% 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.