↓ Skip to main content

Current understanding of the relationship between cervical manipulation and stroke: what does it mean for the chiropractic profession?

Overview of attention for article published in Chiropractic & Osteopathy, August 2010
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)

Mentioned by

twitter
11 tweeters
facebook
3 Facebook pages
googleplus
2 Google+ users

Citations

dimensions_citation
30 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
107 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Current understanding of the relationship between cervical manipulation and stroke: what does it mean for the chiropractic profession?
Published in
Chiropractic & Osteopathy, August 2010
DOI 10.1186/1746-1340-18-22
Pubmed ID
Authors

Donald R Murphy

Abstract

The understanding of the relationship between cervical manipulative therapy (CMT) and vertebral artery dissection and stroke (VADS) has evolved considerably over the years. In the beginning the relationship was seen as simple cause-effect, in which CMT was seen to cause VADS in certain susceptible individuals. This was perceived as extremely rare by chiropractic physicians, but as far more common by neurologists and others. Recent evidence has clarified the relationship considerably, and suggests that the relationship is not causal, but that patients with VADS often have initial symptoms which cause them to seek care from a chiropractic physician and have a stroke some time after, independent of the chiropractic visit.This new understanding has shifted the focus for the chiropractic physician from one of attempting to "screen" for "risk of complication to manipulation" to one of recognizing the patient who may be having VADS so that early diagnosis and intervention can be pursued. In addition, this new understanding presents the chiropractic profession with an opportunity to change the conversation about CMT and VADS by taking a proactive, public health approach to this uncommon but potentially devastating disorder.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 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 107 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 5 5%
Brazil 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
Unknown 98 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 20 19%
Student > Bachelor 13 12%
Student > Postgraduate 12 11%
Researcher 10 9%
Student > Master 10 9%
Other 32 30%
Unknown 10 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 63 59%
Nursing and Health Professions 16 15%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 5%
Neuroscience 4 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 2%
Other 5 5%
Unknown 12 11%

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 19 May 2021.
All research outputs
#2,641,794
of 21,224,592 outputs
Outputs from Chiropractic & Osteopathy
#26
of 82 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#16,620
of 141,990 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Chiropractic & Osteopathy
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,224,592 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 82 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% 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 141,990 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 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