↓ Skip to main content

Relative abdominal adiposity is associated with chronic low back pain: a preliminary explorative study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (55th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
55 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Relative abdominal adiposity is associated with chronic low back pain: a preliminary explorative study
Published in
BMC Public Health, August 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12889-016-3357-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Cristy Brooks, Jason C. Siegler, Paul W. M. Marshall

Abstract

Although previous research suggests a relationship between chronic low back pain (cLBP) and adiposity, this relationship is poorly understood. No research has explored the relationship between abdominal-specific subcutaneous and visceral adiposity with pain and disability in cLBP individuals. The aim of this study therefore was to examine the relationship of regional and total body adiposity to pain and disability in cLBP individuals. A preliminary explorative study design of seventy (n = 70) adult men and women with cLBP was employed. Anthropometric and adiposity measures were collected, including body mass index, waist-to-hip ratio, total body adiposity and specific ultrasound-based abdominal adiposity measurements. Self-reported pain and disability were measured using a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) questionnaires respectively. Relationships between anthropometric and adiposity measures with pain and disability were assessed using correlation and regression analyses. Significant correlations between abdominal to lumbar adiposity ratio (A-L) variables and the waist-to-hip ratio with self-reported pain were observed. A-L variables were found to predict pain, with 9.1-30.5 % of the variance in pain across the three analysis models explained by these variables. No relationships between anthropometric or adiposity variables to self-reported disability were identified. The findings of this study indicated that regional distribution of adiposity via the A-L is associated with cLBP, providing a rationale for future research on adiposity and cLBP.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 55 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 55 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 9 16%
Student > Bachelor 8 15%
Researcher 6 11%
Student > Postgraduate 5 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 4%
Other 8 15%
Unknown 17 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 23 42%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 15%
Psychology 2 4%
Sports and Recreations 2 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 2%
Other 1 2%
Unknown 18 33%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 September 2020.
All research outputs
#10,580,945
of 18,950,555 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#7,753
of 12,539 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#118,992
of 274,356 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#11
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 18,950,555 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,539 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.2. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% 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 274,356 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.