↓ Skip to main content

Clinical photographic observation of plantar corns and callus associated with a nominal scale classification and inter- observer reliability study in a student population

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Foot and Ankle Research, October 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (74th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 tweeters

Readers on

mendeley
16 Mendeley
Title
Clinical photographic observation of plantar corns and callus associated with a nominal scale classification and inter- observer reliability study in a student population
Published in
Journal of Foot and Ankle Research, October 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13047-017-0225-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

David R. Tollafield

Abstract

The management of plantar corns and callus has a low cost-benefit with reduced prioritisation in healthcare. The distinction between types of keratin lesions that forms corns and callus has attracted limited interest. Observation is imperative to improving diagnostic predictions and a number of studies point to some confusion as to how best to achieve this. The use of photographic observation has been proposed to improve our understanding of intractable keratin lesions. Students from a podiatry school reviewed photographs where plantar keratin lesions were divided into four nominal groups; light callus (Grade 1), heavy defined callus (Grade 2), concentric keratin plugs (Grade 3) and callus with deeper density changes under the forefoot (Grade 4). A group of 'experts' assigned from qualified podiatrists validated the observer rated responses by the students. Cohen's weighted statistic (k) was used to measure inter-observer reliability. First year students (unskilled) performed less well when viewing photographs (k = 0.33) compared to third year students (semi-skilled, k = 0.62). The experts performed better than students (k = 0.88) providing consistency with wound care models in other studies. Improved clinical annotation of clinical features, supported by classification of keratin- based lesions, combined with patient outcome tools, could improve the scientific rationale to prioritise patient care. Problems associated with photographic assessment involves trying to differentiate similar lesions without the benefit of direct palpation. Direct observation of callus with and without debridement requires further investigation alongside the model proposed in this paper.

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.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 16 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 16 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Doctoral Student 4 25%
Student > Bachelor 3 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 13%
Student > Master 2 13%
Researcher 1 6%
Other 1 6%
Unknown 3 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 38%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 6%
Arts and Humanities 1 6%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 5 31%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 December 2017.
All research outputs
#2,682,225
of 12,459,631 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Foot and Ankle Research
#210
of 503 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#68,739
of 272,486 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Foot and Ankle Research
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,459,631 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 78th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 503 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% 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 272,486 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 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them