↓ Skip to main content

A theoretical model for the development of a diagnosis-based clinical decision rule for the management of patients with spinal pain

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, August 2007
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

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

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
39 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
156 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
A theoretical model for the development of a diagnosis-based clinical decision rule for the management of patients with spinal pain
Published in
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, August 2007
DOI 10.1186/1471-2474-8-75
Pubmed ID
Authors

Donald R Murphy, Eric L Hurwitz

Abstract

Spinal pain is a common problem, and disability related to spinal pain has great consequence in terms of human suffering, medical costs and costs to society. The traditional approach to the non-surgical management of patients with spinal pain, as well as to research in spinal pain, has been such that the type of treatment any given patient receives is determined more by what type of practitioner he or she sees, rather than by diagnosis. Furthermore, determination of treatment depends more on the type of practitioner than by the needs of the patient. Much needed is an approach to clinical management and research that allows clinicians to base treatment decisions on a reliable and valid diagnostic strategy leading to treatment choices that result in demonstrable outcomes in terms of pain relief and functional improvement. The challenges of diagnosis in patients with spinal pain, however, are that spinal pain is often multifactorial, the factors involved are wide ranging, and for most of these factors there exist no definitive objective tests.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 156 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 1%
New Zealand 2 1%
Italy 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Chile 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
Other 1 <1%
Unknown 144 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 24 15%
Student > Master 22 14%
Other 14 9%
Student > Bachelor 14 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 13 8%
Other 46 29%
Unknown 23 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 70 45%
Nursing and Health Professions 24 15%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 6%
Neuroscience 5 3%
Sports and Recreations 4 3%
Other 17 11%
Unknown 27 17%
Attention Score in Context

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 01 September 2014.
All research outputs
#13,339,172
of 23,011,300 outputs
Outputs from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#1,856
of 4,091 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#56,589
of 67,570 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#8
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,011,300 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,091 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% 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 67,570 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
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 is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.