↓ Skip to main content

Evidence for a general stiffening motor control pattern in neck pain: a cross sectional study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, March 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (88th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
21 X users
peer_reviews
1 peer review site
facebook
4 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
52 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
78 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
Evidence for a general stiffening motor control pattern in neck pain: a cross sectional study
Published in
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, March 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12891-015-0517-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ingebrigt Meisingset, Astrid Woodhouse, Ann- Katrin Stensdotter, Øyvind Stavdahl, Håvard Lorås, Sigmund Gismervik, Hege Andresen, Kristian Austreim, Ottar Vasseljen

Abstract

Neck pain is associated with several alterations in neck motion and motor control. Previous studies have investigated single constructs of neck motor control, while few have applied a comprehensive set of tests to investigate cervical motor control. This comparative cross- sectional study aimed to investigate different motor control constructs in neck pain patients and healthy controls. A total of 166 subjects participated in the study, 91 healthy controls (HC) and 75 neck pain patients (NP) with long-lasting moderate to severe neck pain. Neck flexibility, proprioception, head steadiness, trajectory movement control, and postural sway were assessed using a 3D motion tracking system (Liberty). The different constructs of neck motion and motor control were based on tests used in previous studies. Neck flexibility was lower in NP compared to HC, indicated by reduced cervical ROM and conjunct motion. Movement velocity was slower in NP compared to HC. Tests of head steadiness showed a stiffer movement pattern in NP compared to HC, indicated by lower head angular velocity. NP patients departed less from a predictable trajectory movement pattern (figure of eight) compared to healthy controls, but there was no difference for unpredictable movement patterns (the Fly test). No differences were found for postural sway in standing with eyes open and eyes closed. However, NP patients had significantly larger postural sway when standing on a balance pad. Proprioception did not differ between the groups. Largest effect sizes (ES) were found for neck flexibility (ES range: 0.2- 0.8) and head steadiness (ES range: 1.3- 2.0). Neck flexibility was the only construct that showed a significant association with current neck pain, while peak velocity was the only variable that showed a significant association with kinesiophobia. NP patients showed an overall stiffer and more rigid neck motor control pattern compared to HC, indicated by lower neck flexibility, slower movement velocity, increased head steadiness and more rigid trajectory head motion patterns. Only neck flexibility showed a significant association with clinical features in NP patients.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 21 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 78 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 78 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 13 17%
Student > Bachelor 9 12%
Researcher 7 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 6 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 6%
Other 20 26%
Unknown 18 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 19 24%
Medicine and Dentistry 18 23%
Neuroscience 5 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Computer Science 2 3%
Other 9 12%
Unknown 23 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 January 2024.
All research outputs
#2,572,086
of 25,473,687 outputs
Outputs from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#493
of 4,420 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#33,608
of 292,196 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#7
of 79 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,473,687 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,420 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 292,196 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 79 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.