↓ Skip to main content

The NEtherlands Cervical Kinematics (NECK) Trial. Cost-effectiveness of anterior cervical discectomy with or without interbody fusion and arthroplasty in the treatment of cervical disc herniation; a…

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, June 2010
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

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

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
34 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
127 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
The NEtherlands Cervical Kinematics (NECK) Trial. Cost-effectiveness of anterior cervical discectomy with or without interbody fusion and arthroplasty in the treatment of cervical disc herniation; a double-blind randomised multicenter study
Published in
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, June 2010
DOI 10.1186/1471-2474-11-122
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mark P Arts, Ronald Brand, Elske van den Akker, Bart W Koes, Wilco C Peul

Abstract

Patients with cervical radicular syndrome due to disc herniation refractory to conservative treatment are offered surgical treatment. Anterior cervical discectomy is the standard procedure, often in combination with interbody fusion. Accelerated adjacent disc degeneration is a known entity on the long term. Recently, cervical disc prostheses are developed to maintain motion and possibly reduce the incidence of adjacent disc degeneration. A comparative cost-effectiveness study focused on adjacent segment degeneration and functional outcome has not been performed yet. We present the design of the NECK trial, a randomised study on cost-effectiveness of anterior cervical discectomy with or without interbody fusion and arthroplasty in patients with cervical disc herniation.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 127 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Portugal 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 122 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 18 14%
Researcher 17 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 9%
Other 10 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 8%
Other 35 28%
Unknown 25 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 43 34%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 9%
Psychology 8 6%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 5 4%
Engineering 3 2%
Other 21 17%
Unknown 35 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 19 October 2014.
All research outputs
#14,202,176
of 22,766,595 outputs
Outputs from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#2,120
of 4,037 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#66,059
of 83,602 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#19
of 31 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,766,595 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,037 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.1. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% 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 83,602 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 31 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.