↓ Skip to main content

New physical examination tests for lumbar spondylolisthesis and instability: low midline sill sign and interspinous gap change during lumbar flexion-extension motion

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

About this Attention Score

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

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
video
1 YouTube creator

Citations

dimensions_citation
26 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
119 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
New physical examination tests for lumbar spondylolisthesis and instability: low midline sill sign and interspinous gap change during lumbar flexion-extension motion
Published in
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, April 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12891-015-0551-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kang Ahn, Hyung-Joon Jhun

Abstract

Lumbar spondylolisthesis (LS) and lumbar instability (LI) are common disorders in patients with low back or lumbar radicular pain. However, few physical examination tests for LS and LI have been reported. In the study described herein, new physical examination tests for LS and LI were devised and evaluated for their validity. The test for LS was designated "low midline sill sign", and that for LI was designated "interspinous gap change" during lumbar flexion-extension motion. The validity of the low midline sill sign was evaluated in 96 patients with low back or lumbar radicular pain. Validity of the interspinous gap change during lumbar flexion-extension motion was evaluated in 73 patients with low back or lumbar radicular pain. The sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of the two tests were also investigated. The sensitivity and specificity of the low midline sill sign for LS were 81.3% and 89.1%, respectively. Positive and negative predictive values of the test were 78.8% and 90.5%, respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of the interspinous gap change test for LI were 82.2% and 60.7%, respectively. Positive and negative predictive values of the test were 77.1% and 68.0%, respectively. The low midline sill sign and interspinous gap change tests are effective for the detection of LS and LI, and can be performed easily in an outpatient setting.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 119 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 115 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 17 14%
Student > Bachelor 17 14%
Student > Postgraduate 9 8%
Researcher 8 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 7%
Other 25 21%
Unknown 35 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 38 32%
Nursing and Health Professions 24 20%
Unspecified 4 3%
Sports and Recreations 3 3%
Engineering 3 3%
Other 9 8%
Unknown 38 32%
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 03 December 2018.
All research outputs
#14,827,682
of 22,831,537 outputs
Outputs from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#2,299
of 4,045 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#148,757
of 265,469 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#38
of 64 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,831,537 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,045 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 39th percentile – i.e., 39% 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 265,469 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 64 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.