↓ Skip to main content

Physical characteristics of the back are not predictive of low back pain in healthy workers: A prospective study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, January 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 (84th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
9 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
127 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
Physical characteristics of the back are not predictive of low back pain in healthy workers: A prospective study
Published in
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, January 2009
DOI 10.1186/1471-2474-10-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

An Van Nieuwenhuyse, Geert Crombez, Alex Burdorf, Geert Verbeke, Raphael Masschelein, Guido Moens, Philippe Mairiaux, the BelCoBack Study Group

Abstract

In the working population, back disorders are an important reason for sick leave and permanent work inability. In the context of fitting the job to the worker, one of the primary tasks of the occupational health physician is to evaluate the balance between work-related and individual variables. Since this evaluation of work capacity often consists of a physical examination of the back, the objective of this study was to investigate whether a physical examination of the low back, which is routinely performed in occupational medicine, predicts the development of low back pain (LBP).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 127 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 2%
New Zealand 2 2%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Norway 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
Unknown 117 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 22 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 15%
Researcher 13 10%
Student > Bachelor 12 9%
Other 10 8%
Other 34 27%
Unknown 17 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 51 40%
Nursing and Health Professions 16 13%
Sports and Recreations 9 7%
Psychology 7 6%
Engineering 6 5%
Other 16 13%
Unknown 22 17%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 November 2017.
All research outputs
#4,791,131
of 23,314,015 outputs
Outputs from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#982
of 4,132 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#26,596
of 171,711 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#10
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,314,015 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,132 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% 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 171,711 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 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.