| Title |
Red flags to screen for vertebral fracture in patients presenting with low-back pain
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd008643.pub2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Christopher M Williams, Nicholas Henschke, Christopher G. Maher, Maurits W van Tulder, Bart W Koes, Petra Macaskill, Les Irwig |
| Abstract |
Low-back pain (LBP) is a common condition seen in primary care. A principal aim during a clinical examination is to identify patients with a higher likelihood of underlying serious pathology, such as vertebral fracture, who may require additional investigation and specific treatment. All 'evidence-based' clinical practice guidelines recommend the use of red flags to screen for serious causes of back pain. However, it remains unclear if the diagnostic accuracy of red flags is sufficient to support this recommendation. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 34 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 10 | 29% |
| United Kingdom | 7 | 21% |
| France | 2 | 6% |
| Netherlands | 2 | 6% |
| Canada | 1 | 3% |
| Colombia | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 11 | 32% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 28 | 82% |
| Scientists | 4 | 12% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 6% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 395 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 2 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | <1% |
| United States | 2 | <1% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| Romania | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 387 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 74 | 19% |
| Student > Bachelor | 60 | 15% |
| Other | 33 | 8% |
| Researcher | 32 | 8% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 29 | 7% |
| Other | 67 | 17% |
| Unknown | 100 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 151 | 38% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 63 | 16% |
| Social Sciences | 12 | 3% |
| Psychology | 11 | 3% |
| Sports and Recreations | 9 | 2% |
| Other | 31 | 8% |
| Unknown | 118 | 30% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 36. 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 January 2022.
All research outputs
#1,033,195
of 23,906,448 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,217
of 12,803 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#9,320
of 288,770 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#24
of 172 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,906,448 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,803 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 33.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% 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 288,770 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 172 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.