| 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. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 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 | 7 | 64% |
| Australia | 2 | 18% |
| Spain | 2 | 18% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 7 | 64% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 18% |
| Scientists | 2 | 18% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 120 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Japan | 1 | <1% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 117 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 18 | 15% |
| Researcher | 16 | 13% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 14 | 12% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 12 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 9 | 8% |
| Other | 28 | 23% |
| Unknown | 23 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 47 | 39% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 25 | 21% |
| Sports and Recreations | 6 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 3% |
| Engineering | 4 | 3% |
| Other | 6 | 5% |
| Unknown | 28 | 23% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 20 April 2020.
All research outputs
#4,661,728
of 24,715,720 outputs
Outputs from Current Reviews in Musculoskeletal Medicine
#152
of 528 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#28,235
of 159,560 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Reviews in Musculoskeletal Medicine
#6
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,715,720 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 528 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% 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 159,560 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 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its contemporaries.