| Title |
Conservative interventions for treating diaphyseal fractures of the forearm bones in children
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd008775.pub2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Vrisha Madhuri, Vivek Dutt, Abhay D Gahukamble, Prathap Tharyan |
| Abstract |
Diaphyseal forearm fractures in children are common injuries, the vast majority of which are treated conservatively. There is a need to assess the role of modifiable factors such as techniques of reduction and casting in order to optimise functional recovery. |
Twitter Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 4 | 50% |
| Unknown | 4 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 6 | 75% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 113 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Andorra | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 112 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 20 | 18% |
| Other | 10 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 10 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 8% |
| Researcher | 8 | 7% |
| Other | 24 | 21% |
| Unknown | 32 | 28% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 47 | 42% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 9 | 8% |
| Psychology | 4 | 4% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 2% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 10 | 9% |
| Unknown | 39 | 35% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 12 August 2016.
All research outputs
#6,180,717
of 22,708,120 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#8,020
of 12,312 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#51,694
of 192,344 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#168
of 256 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,708,120 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,312 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 30.3. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% 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 192,344 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 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 256 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.