↓ Skip to main content

Physical risk factors for adolescent neck and mid back pain: a systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in Chiropractic & Manual Therapies, September 2018
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 (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
25 tweeters
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
92 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
Physical risk factors for adolescent neck and mid back pain: a systematic review
Published in
Chiropractic & Manual Therapies, September 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12998-018-0206-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Brigitte Wirth, Tobias Potthoff, Sandra Rosser, Barry Kim Humphreys, Eling D. de Bruin

Abstract

Besides low back pain (LBP), also neck pain (NP) and mid back pain (MBP) are common health issues in adolescence. Psychological factors are regarded as main risk factors for spinal pain in adolescence, but recent studies suggest that the importance of physical factors might be underestimated. The purpose of this study was to summarize the results of studies on physical risk factors for adolescent NP and MBP. Cross-sectional and prospective English studies on NP and MBP in adolescents aged 10 to 18 were searched by a professional librarian in Medline (OvidSP), Premedline (PubMed), EMBASE, Cochrane, CINAHL, PEDro and PsycINFO up to October 2016. Studies that were restricted to self-report via questionnaires were excluded. Eight cross-sectional studies could be included in this review. Some aspects of sagittal alignment in sitting (increased lumbar lordosis) and standing (anteroposition of the head, sway-back posture) were associated with NP. Study comparability was impeded by inconsistent definitions of NP and MBP and a wide variety of outcome measures. This systematic review indicates that prospective studies using a consistent definition of NP and MBP are needed. Such studies might further investigate sagittal alignment in sitting and standing as possible risk factors for NP and MBP in adolescence using a consistent terminology for the outcomes and longitudinal research designs.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 25 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 92 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 92 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 14%
Student > Master 10 11%
Other 8 9%
Student > Bachelor 8 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 8%
Other 20 22%
Unknown 26 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 25 27%
Nursing and Health Professions 20 22%
Sports and Recreations 8 9%
Psychology 3 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 1%
Other 3 3%
Unknown 32 35%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. 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 11 November 2021.
All research outputs
#1,663,465
of 21,131,454 outputs
Outputs from Chiropractic & Manual Therapies
#106
of 519 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#36,952
of 295,488 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Chiropractic & Manual Therapies
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,131,454 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 519 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% 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 295,488 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 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them