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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Non-radiographic methods of measuring global sagittal balance: a systematic review
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Scoliosis and Spinal Disorders, October 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13013-017-0135-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Larry Cohen, Sarah Kobayashi, Milena Simic, Sarah Dennis, Kathryn Refshauge, Evangelos Pappas |
| Abstract |
Global sagittal balance, describing the vertical alignment of the spine, is an important factor in the non-operative and operative management of back pain. However, the typical gold standard method of assessment, radiography, requires exposure to radiation and increased cost, making it unsuitable for repeated use. Non-radiologic methods of assessment are available, but their reliability and validity in the current literature have not been systematically assessed. Therefore, the aim of this systematic review was to synthesise and evaluate the reliability and validity of non-radiographic methods of assessing global sagittal balance. Five electronic databases were searched and methodology evaluated by two independent reviewers using the13-item, reliability and validity, Brink and Louw critical appraisal tool. Fourteen articles describing six methodologies were identified from 3940 records. The six non-radiographic methodologies were biophotogrammetry, plumbline, surface topography, infra-red motion analysis, spinal mouse and ultrasound. Construct validity was evaluated for surface topography (R = 0.49 and R = 0.68, p < 0.001), infra-red motion-analysis (ICC = 0.81) and plumbline testing (ICC = 0.83). Reliability ranged from moderate (ICC = 0.67) for spinal mouse to very high for surface topography (Cronbach α = 0.985). Measures of agreement ranged from 0.9 mm (plumbline) to 22.94 mm (infra-red motion-analysis). Variability in study populations, reporting parameters and statistics prevented a meta-analysis. The reliability and validity of the non-radiographic methods of measuring global sagittal balance was reported within 14 identified articles. Based on this limited evidence, non-radiographic methods appear to have moderate to very high reliability and limited to three methodologies, moderate to high validity. The overall quality and methodological approaches of the included articles were highly variable. Further research should focus on the validity of non-radiographic methods with a greater adherence to reporting actual and clinically relevant measures of agreement. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 3 | 50% |
| Germany | 1 | 17% |
| Spain | 1 | 17% |
| Unknown | 1 | 17% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 83% |
| Scientists | 1 | 17% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 64 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 64 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 9 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 8 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 6% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 10 | 16% |
| Unknown | 25 | 39% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 12 | 19% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 11 | 17% |
| Sports and Recreations | 6 | 9% |
| Engineering | 3 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 6 | 9% |
| Unknown | 25 | 39% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 15 February 2018.
All research outputs
#5,477,413
of 23,005,189 outputs
Outputs from Scoliosis and Spinal Disorders
#13
of 97 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#86,774
of 323,064 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Scoliosis and Spinal Disorders
#4
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,005,189 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 76th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 97 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% 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 323,064 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 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 6 of them.