↓ Skip to main content

Clinical classification in low back pain: best-evidence diagnostic rules based on systematic reviews

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#6 of 3,534)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
263 tweeters
facebook
29 Facebook pages
video
2 video uploaders

Citations

dimensions_citation
77 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
957 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
Clinical classification in low back pain: best-evidence diagnostic rules based on systematic reviews
Published in
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, May 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12891-017-1549-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tom Petersen, Mark Laslett, Carsten Juhl

Abstract

Clinical examination findings are used in primary care to give an initial diagnosis to patients with low back pain and related leg symptoms. The purpose of this study was to develop best evidence Clinical Diagnostic Rules (CDR] for the identification of the most common patho-anatomical disorders in the lumbar spine; i.e. intervertebral discs, sacroiliac joints, facet joints, bone, muscles, nerve roots, muscles, peripheral nerve tissue, and central nervous system sensitization. A sensitive electronic search strategy using MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL databases was combined with hand searching and citation tracking to identify eligible studies. Criteria for inclusion were: persons with low back pain with or without related leg symptoms, history or physical examination findings suitable for use in primary care, comparison with acceptable reference standards, and statistical reporting permitting calculation of diagnostic value. Quality assessments were made independently by two reviewers using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies tool. Clinical examination findings that were investigated by at least two studies were included and results that met our predefined threshold of positive likelihood ratio ≥ 2 or negative likelihood ratio ≤ 0.5 were considered for the CDR. Sixty-four studies satisfied our eligible criteria. We were able to construct promising CDRs for symptomatic intervertebral disc, sacroiliac joint, spondylolisthesis, disc herniation with nerve root involvement, and spinal stenosis. Single clinical test appear not to be as useful as clusters of tests that are more closely in line with clinical decision making. This is the first comprehensive systematic review of diagnostic accuracy studies that evaluate clinical examination findings for their ability to identify the most common patho-anatomical disorders in the lumbar spine. In some diagnostic categories we have sufficient evidence to recommend a CDR. In others, we have only preliminary evidence that needs testing in future studies. Most findings were tested in secondary or tertiary care. Thus, the accuracy of the findings in a primary care setting has yet to be confirmed.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 263 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 957 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Australia 2 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 954 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 169 18%
Student > Bachelor 149 16%
Other 137 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 81 8%
Researcher 57 6%
Other 173 18%
Unknown 191 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 298 31%
Medicine and Dentistry 290 30%
Sports and Recreations 55 6%
Neuroscience 24 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 17 2%
Other 54 6%
Unknown 219 23%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 180. 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 22 November 2021.
All research outputs
#141,244
of 19,524,015 outputs
Outputs from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#6
of 3,534 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#3,912
of 279,249 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 19,524,015 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,534 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 279,249 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 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