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.
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Pain and disability following first-time lumbar fusion surgery for degenerative disorders: a systematic review protocol
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Systematic Reviews, May 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13643-016-0252-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Niek Koenders, Alison Rushton, Nicola Heneghan, Martin L. Verra, Paul Willems, Thomas Hoogeboom, J Bart Staal |
| Abstract |
Lumbar spinal fusion for degenerative disorders of the lumbar spine is frequently used, despite current research presenting inconclusive evidence. This study aims to systematically review and meta-analyse the natural course of pain and disability in patients with degenerative disorders of the lumbar spine such as spinal stenosis, spondylolisthesis, disc herniation, or discogenic low back pain to improve lumbar spinal fusion management. An electronic database search will be conducted up to 30 September 2015 using MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and ZETOC database. In addition, a search for articles in press and published ahead of print, British National Bibliography for Report Literature, and OpenGrey will be conducted. Prospective cohort studies using outcome measures of pain and disability will be eligible for inclusion. Two reviewers will screen titles, abstracts, and full-text independently using predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria. The risk of bias of included studies will be assessed with the modified version of the Quality in Prognostic Studies tool. If meta-analysis of outcome data is deemed appropriate, variance-weighted pooled means will be calculated. The results of this systematic review and meta-analysis may improve understanding of recovery after lumbar spinal fusion and improve lumbar spinal fusion management. PROSPERO CRD42015026922. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 73 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 73 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 11 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 8 | 11% |
| Other | 7 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 7 | 10% |
| Other | 17 | 23% |
| Unknown | 15 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 20 | 27% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 15 | 21% |
| Sports and Recreations | 6 | 8% |
| Neuroscience | 4 | 5% |
| Engineering | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 6 | 8% |
| Unknown | 19 | 26% |
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 07 August 2017.
All research outputs
#20,441,465
of 22,996,001 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#1,920
of 2,005 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#253,587
of 299,167 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#30
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,996,001 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,005 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.8. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 299,167 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 32 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.