↓ Skip to main content

Ultrasound evidence of altered lumbar connective tissue structure in human subjects with chronic low back pain

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, December 2009
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 (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (81st percentile)

Citations

dimensions_citation
169 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
311 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
Ultrasound evidence of altered lumbar connective tissue structure in human subjects with chronic low back pain
Published in
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, December 2009
DOI 10.1186/1471-2474-10-151
Pubmed ID
Authors

Helene M Langevin, Debbie Stevens-Tuttle, James R Fox, Gary J Badger, Nicole A Bouffard, Martin H Krag, Junru Wu, Sharon M Henry

Abstract

Although the connective tissues forming the fascial planes of the back have been hypothesized to play a role in the pathogenesis of chronic low back pain (LBP), there have been no previous studies quantitatively evaluating connective tissue structure in this condition. The goal of this study was to perform an ultrasound-based comparison of perimuscular connective tissue structure in the lumbar region in a group of human subjects with chronic or recurrent LBP for more than 12 months, compared with a group of subjects without LBP.

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 311 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 4 1%
Germany 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Norway 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 302 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 49 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 43 14%
Researcher 29 9%
Student > Bachelor 27 9%
Other 25 8%
Other 74 24%
Unknown 64 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 95 31%
Nursing and Health Professions 52 17%
Sports and Recreations 29 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 16 5%
Engineering 13 4%
Other 30 10%
Unknown 76 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 20. 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 04 September 2022.
All research outputs
#1,707,759
of 23,939,410 outputs
Outputs from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#329
of 4,216 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#7,518
of 171,397 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#4
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,939,410 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,216 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 171,397 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.