↓ Skip to main content

Multimodality imaging of subacromial impingement syndrome

Overview of attention for article published in Skeletal Radiology, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
32 Mendeley
Title
Multimodality imaging of subacromial impingement syndrome
Published in
Skeletal Radiology, February 2018
DOI 10.1007/s00256-018-2875-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lionel Pesquer, Sophie Borghol, Philippe Meyer, Mickael Ropars, Benjamin Dallaudière, Pierre Abadie

Abstract

Subacromial impingement syndrome results from irritation of the tendons of the rotator cuff muscles in the subacromial space and may manifest as a range of pathologies. However, subacromial impingement is a dynamic condition for which imaging reveals predisposing factors but no pathognomonic indicators. Also, the usual imaging features of subacromial impingement may be seen in symptomatic and asymptomatic patients. Therefore, imaging is able to detect tears and describe the risk factors of impingement but cannot confirm subacromial impingement. Radiographs allow assessment of the morphology of the acromion and its lateral extension by means of the acromial index and the critical shoulder angle, which may increase in cases of subacromial impingement. Ultrasound is necessary to evaluate a tendon tear and is the only tool that provides dynamic information, which is essential to assessing dynamic conditions. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) allows the assessment of associated intraarticular abnormalities, joint effusion, and bone marrow edema. The objective of this article is to provide an overview of the pathophysiology and clinical manifestations of subacromial impingement and discuss recent advances in the imaging of subacromial impingement and the role of radiography, ultrasound, and MRI in differentiating normal from pathologic findings.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 32 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 32 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 7 22%
Unspecified 4 13%
Researcher 4 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 9%
Other 3 9%
Other 11 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 53%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 19%
Unspecified 5 16%
Physics and Astronomy 1 3%
Sports and Recreations 1 3%
Other 2 6%

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 26 June 2018.
All research outputs
#10,042,766
of 13,138,880 outputs
Outputs from Skeletal Radiology
#557
of 773 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#185,414
of 268,741 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Skeletal Radiology
#25
of 51 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,138,880 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 773 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.6. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% 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 268,741 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 51 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.