↓ Skip to main content

The layer concept: utilization in determining the pain generators, pathology and how structure determines treatment

Overview of attention for article published in Current Reviews in Musculoskeletal Medicine, February 2012
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 (83rd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
13 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
40 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
68 Mendeley
Title
The layer concept: utilization in determining the pain generators, pathology and how structure determines treatment
Published in
Current Reviews in Musculoskeletal Medicine, February 2012
DOI 10.1007/s12178-011-9105-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Peter Draovitch, Jaime Edelstein, Bryan T. Kelly

Abstract

The level of understanding of pain in the non-arthritic hip has made significant strides in the last couple of decades beginning with the discoveries of Reinhold Ganz, MD. However, even with the detection of subtle bony abnormalities, including femoroacetabular impingement, a clinician's ability to differentiate pain generators in the hip has been ambiguous. Deciphering the etiology of the pathology versus the pain generator is essential in prescribing the proper treatment. The Layer Concept developed by Dr. Bryan Kelly, is a systematic means of determining which structures about the hip are the source of the pathology, which are the pain generators and how to then best implement treatment. Four layers will be discussed in this article. Layer I, the osseous layer, Layer II, the inert tissue layer, Layer III, the contractile layer and Layer IV, the neuromechanical layer.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 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 68 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 1%
Japan 1 1%
Canada 1 1%
Unknown 65 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 13 19%
Other 12 18%
Researcher 11 16%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 10%
Unspecified 5 7%
Other 20 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 36 53%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 19%
Unspecified 7 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 6%
Engineering 3 4%
Other 5 7%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 17 November 2018.
All research outputs
#1,972,576
of 13,035,878 outputs
Outputs from Current Reviews in Musculoskeletal Medicine
#60
of 294 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#25,862
of 161,503 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Reviews in Musculoskeletal Medicine
#3
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,035,878 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 84th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 294 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% 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 161,503 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 83% 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 5 of them.