↓ Skip to main content

ACL graft failure location differs between allografts and autografts

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Sports Science, Medicine and Rehabilitation, June 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
67 Mendeley
Title
ACL graft failure location differs between allografts and autografts
Published in
BMC Sports Science, Medicine and Rehabilitation, June 2012
DOI 10.1186/1758-2555-4-22
Pubmed ID
Authors

Robert A Magnussen, Dean C Taylor, Alison P Toth, William E Garrett

Abstract

Between 5 and 20% of patients undergoing ACL reconstruction fail and require revision. Animal studies have demonstrated slower incorporation of allograft tissue, which may affect the mechanism of graft failure. The purpose of this study is to determine the location of traumatic graft failure following ACL reconstruction and investigate differences in failure patterns between autografts and allografts.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 67 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 1 1%
Chile 1 1%
Unknown 65 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 11 16%
Other 8 12%
Researcher 8 12%
Student > Bachelor 8 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 9%
Other 11 16%
Unknown 15 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 26 39%
Engineering 8 12%
Sports and Recreations 5 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 4%
Other 3 4%
Unknown 19 28%
Attention Score in Context

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 21 June 2013.
All research outputs
#17,285,668
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from BMC Sports Science, Medicine and Rehabilitation
#465
of 680 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#119,057
of 181,089 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Sports Science, Medicine and Rehabilitation
#3
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 680 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.5. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% 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 181,089 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 7 of them.