The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
| Title |
Inter‐assessor reliability of practice based biomechanical assessment of the foot and ankle
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Foot and Ankle Research, June 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1757-1146-5-14 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Hannah L Jarvis, Christopher J Nester, Richard K Jones, Anita Williams, Peter D Bowden |
| Abstract |
There is no consensus on which protocols should be used to assess foot and lower limb biomechanics in clinical practice. The reliability of many assessments has been questioned by previous research. The aim of this investigation was to (i) identify (through consensus) what biomechanical examinations are used in clinical practice and (ii) evaluate the inter-assessor reliability of some of these examinations. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 8 | 53% |
| Germany | 1 | 7% |
| Ireland | 1 | 7% |
| Australia | 1 | 7% |
| United States | 1 | 7% |
| Unknown | 3 | 20% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 9 | 60% |
| Scientists | 4 | 27% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 13% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 102 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | 2% |
| Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
| Germany | 1 | <1% |
| Belgium | 1 | <1% |
| Japan | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 96 | 94% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 20 | 20% |
| Researcher | 12 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 10 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 9 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 8% |
| Other | 27 | 26% |
| Unknown | 16 | 16% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 41 | 40% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 14 | 14% |
| Sports and Recreations | 8 | 8% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 5% |
| Engineering | 4 | 4% |
| Other | 8 | 8% |
| Unknown | 22 | 22% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 16 April 2013.
All research outputs
#3,527,674
of 26,222,113 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Foot and Ankle Research
#241
of 901 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#21,967
of 178,859 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Foot and Ankle Research
#2
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,222,113 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 901 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% 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 178,859 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 6 of them.