↓ Skip to main content

The clinical diagnosis of symptomatic forefoot neuroma in the general population: a Delphi consensus study

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
30 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
18 Mendeley
Title
The clinical diagnosis of symptomatic forefoot neuroma in the general population: a Delphi consensus study
Published in
Journal of Foot and Ankle Research, December 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13047-017-0241-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Charlotte Dando, Lindsey Cherry, Lyndon Jones, Catherine Bowen

Abstract

There is limited evidence for defining what specific method or methods should be used to clinically influence clinical decision making for forefoot neuroma. The aim of this study was to develop a clinical assessment protocol that has agreed expert consensus for the clinical diagnosis of forefoot neuroma. A four-round Delphi consensus study was completed with 16 expert health professionals from either a clinical or clinical academic background, following completion of a structured literature review. Clinical experience ranged from 5 to 34 years (mean: 19.5 years). Consensus was sought on the optimal methods to achieve the clinical diagnosis of forefoot neuroma. Round 1 sought individual input with an open ended question. This developed a list of recommendations. Round 2 and 3 asked the participants to accept or reject each of the recommendations in the list in relation to the question: "What is the best way to clinically diagnose neuroma in the forefoot?" Votes that were equal to or greater than 60% were accepted into the next round; participant's votes equal to or less then 20% were excluded. The remaining participant's votes between 20 to 60% were accepted and placed into the following round for voting. Round 4 asked the participants to rank the list of recommendations according to the strength of recommendation they would give in relation to the question: "What is the best way to clinically diagnose neuroma in the forefoot?" The recruitment and Delphi rounds were conducted through email. In round 1, the 16 participants identified 68 recommendations for the clinical diagnosis of forefoot neuroma. In round 2, 27 recommendations were accepted, 11 recommendations were rejected and 30 recommendations were assigned to be re-voted on. In round 3, 36 recommendations were accepted, 22 recommendations were rejected and 11 recommendations were assigned to be re-voted on. In round 4, 21 recommendations were selected by the participants to form the expert derived clinical assessment protocol for the clinical diagnosis of forefoot neuroma. From these 21 recommendations, a set of themes were established: location of pain, non weight bearing sensation, weight bearing sensation, observations, tests and imaging. Following the identification of 21 method recommendations, a core set of clinical diagnostic methods have been prepared as a clinical assessment protocol for the diagnosis of forefoot neuroma. Based on expert opinion, the core set will assist clinicians in forming a clearer diagnosis of forefoot neuroma.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 30 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 18 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 18 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 3 17%
Other 2 11%
Student > Postgraduate 2 11%
Researcher 2 11%
Student > Master 2 11%
Other 1 6%
Unknown 6 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 33%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 11%
Sports and Recreations 1 6%
Social Sciences 1 6%
Unspecified 1 6%
Other 1 6%
Unknown 6 33%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 20. 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 22 October 2019.
All research outputs
#880,707
of 14,162,689 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Foot and Ankle Research
#70
of 556 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#37,988
of 397,626 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Foot and Ankle Research
#13
of 60 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,162,689 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 556 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% 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 397,626 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 60 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.