| Title |
Red flags to screen for malignancy in patients with low‐back pain
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd008686.pub2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Nicholas Henschke, Christopher G. Maher, Raymond WJG Ostelo, Henrica CW de Vet, Petra Macaskill, Les Irwig |
| Abstract |
The identification of serious pathologies, such as spinal malignancy, is one of the primary purposes of the clinical assessment of patients with low-back pain (LBP). Clinical guidelines recommend awareness of "red flag" features from the patient's clinical history and physical examination to achieve this. However, there are limited empirical data on the diagnostic accuracy of these features and there remains very little information on how best to use them in clinical practice. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 50 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 12 | 24% |
| United States | 5 | 10% |
| Canada | 4 | 8% |
| Spain | 4 | 8% |
| Australia | 1 | 2% |
| Chile | 1 | 2% |
| Isle of Man | 1 | 2% |
| Germany | 1 | 2% |
| Japan | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 3 | 6% |
| Unknown | 17 | 34% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 38 | 76% |
| Scientists | 5 | 10% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 4 | 8% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 3 | 6% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 428 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Netherlands | 3 | <1% |
| United States | 3 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 3 | <1% |
| Chile | 1 | <1% |
| Ireland | 1 | <1% |
| Australia | 1 | <1% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| Denmark | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 414 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 77 | 18% |
| Student > Bachelor | 54 | 13% |
| Researcher | 38 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 37 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 33 | 8% |
| Other | 105 | 25% |
| Unknown | 84 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 193 | 45% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 61 | 14% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 14 | 3% |
| Sports and Recreations | 11 | 3% |
| Neuroscience | 9 | 2% |
| Other | 47 | 11% |
| Unknown | 93 | 22% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 94. 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
#457,743
of 25,595,500 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#807
of 13,156 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,907
of 205,561 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#8
of 211 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,595,500 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,156 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 205,561 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 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 211 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.