↓ Skip to main content

Agreement between diagnoses reached by clinical examination and available reference standards: a prospective study of 216 patients with lumbopelvic pain

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, June 2005
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 (90th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
18 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
63 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
161 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
Agreement between diagnoses reached by clinical examination and available reference standards: a prospective study of 216 patients with lumbopelvic pain
Published in
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, June 2005
DOI 10.1186/1471-2474-6-28
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mark Laslett, Barry McDonald, Hans Tropp, Charles N Aprill, Birgitta Öberg

Abstract

The tissue origin of low back pain (LBP) or referred lower extremity symptoms (LES) may be identified in about 70% of cases using advanced imaging, discography and facet or sacroiliac joint blocks. These techniques are invasive and availability varies. A clinical examination is non-invasive and widely available but its validity is questioned. Diagnostic studies usually examine single tests in relation to single reference standards, yet in clinical practice, clinicians use multiple tests and select from a range of possible diagnoses. There is a need for studies that evaluate the diagnostic performance of clinical diagnoses against available reference standards.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 18 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 161 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 1%
Germany 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
New Zealand 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
Unknown 153 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 25 16%
Other 18 11%
Researcher 17 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 11%
Student > Bachelor 17 11%
Other 43 27%
Unknown 24 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 79 49%
Nursing and Health Professions 26 16%
Sports and Recreations 7 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 3%
Neuroscience 3 2%
Other 14 9%
Unknown 27 17%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 24 July 2023.
All research outputs
#3,148,984
of 24,137,435 outputs
Outputs from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#635
of 4,243 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,761
of 59,349 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#2
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,137,435 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,243 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 well, scoring higher than 85% 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 59,349 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 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 5 of them.