| Title |
The natural course of shoulder instability and treatment trends: a systematic review
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, August 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10195-016-0424-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
W. Eljabu, H. M. Klinger, M. von Knoch |
| Abstract |
The natural course of shoulder instability is still not entirely clear. We aimed in this review to analyse the current scientific evidence of the natural history of shoulder instability. A systematic review of the English literature was performed using the PubMED database throughout January 2014. This review was guided, conducted and reported according to PRISMA criteria. The criteria for inclusion in the study were (1) the article was written in English, (2) the level of evidence was 1-4, (3) the article was available in full text, (4) the article investigated the natural history or course of shoulder instability, the outcome of non-operative management, or the regression of the shoulder symptoms to the mean. The methodological quality of each included study was individually assessed using a newly developed general assessment tool-Assessing the Methodological Quality of Published Papers (AMQPP). Eight articles related to shoulder instability met the inclusion criteria. Four papers were considered high-quality studies (evidence level 1 and 2). One paper assessed the natural history and the natural course of shoulder instability directly. The other studies indirectly assessed the natural history by studying non-operative and operative therapy trends. We found no articles which clearly referred to the role of 'regression to the mean'. Following the natural history and the implementation of standardised non-operative treatment programmes are an effective therapy and superior to surgery in many cases. However, primary acute shoulder dislocation in young active individuals partaking in demanding physical activities could benefit from early surgical intervention. The AMQPP score works as a quick quality-checking tool which helps researchers to identify the key points in each paper and reach a decision regarding the eligibility of the paper more easily. The AMQPP scoring system is still open for further development and expansion. Level of evidence Level IV. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 24 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 5 | 21% |
| Ireland | 2 | 8% |
| Australia | 2 | 8% |
| Brazil | 2 | 8% |
| Italy | 1 | 4% |
| Belgium | 1 | 4% |
| Canada | 1 | 4% |
| Norway | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 9 | 38% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 22 | 92% |
| Scientists | 1 | 4% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 4% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 164 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 164 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 29 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 23 | 14% |
| Other | 13 | 8% |
| Researcher | 12 | 7% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 9 | 5% |
| Other | 24 | 15% |
| Unknown | 54 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 51 | 31% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 35 | 21% |
| Sports and Recreations | 8 | 5% |
| Engineering | 2 | 1% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 1% |
| Other | 4 | 2% |
| Unknown | 62 | 38% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 24 November 2020.
All research outputs
#2,554,044
of 25,413,176 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Orthopaedics and Traumatology
#15
of 225 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#43,105
of 354,248 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Orthopaedics and Traumatology
#1
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,413,176 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 225 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 354,248 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 4 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