↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Surgery for scoliosis in Duchenne muscular dystrophy

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2015
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 (82nd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

1 blog


37 Dimensions

Readers on

199 Mendeley
Surgery for scoliosis in Duchenne muscular dystrophy
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd005375.pub4
Pubmed ID

Daniel KL Cheuk, Virginia Wong, Elizabeth Wraige, Peter Baxter, Ashley Cole


Scoliosis in patients with Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) is usually progressive and is treated with surgery. However, it is unclear whether the existing evidence is sufficiently scientifically rigorous to support a recommendation for spinal surgery for most patients with DMD and scoliosis. This is an updated review, and an updated search was undertaken in which no new studies were found for inclusion. To determine the effectiveness and safety of spinal surgery in patients with DMD with scoliosis. We intended to test whether spinal surgery is effective in increasing survival and improving respiratory function, quality of life, and overall functioning, and whether spinal surgery is associated with severe adverse effects. On 16 June 2015 we searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Disease Group Specialized Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL Plus. We also searched ProQuest Dissertation and Thesis database (January 1980 to June 2015), the National Institutes of Health Clinical Trials Database (6 January 2015), and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (17 June 2015), and checked references. We imposed no language restrictions. We planned to include controlled clinical trials using random or quasi-random allocation of treatment evaluating all forms of spinal surgery for scoliosis in patients with DMD in the review. The control interventions would have been no treatment, non-operative treatment, or a different form of spinal surgery. We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. Two review authors independently examined the search results and evaluated the study characteristics against inclusion criteria in order to decide which studies to include in the review. Of the 49 relevant studies we found, none met the inclusion criteria for the review because they were not clinical trials, but prospective or retrospective reviews of case series. Since no randomized controlled clinical trials were available to evaluate the effectiveness of scoliosis surgery in patients with DMD, we can make no good evidence-based conclusion to guide clinical practice. Patients with scoliosis should be informed as to the uncertainty of benefits and potential risks of surgery for scoliosis. Randomized controlled trials are needed to investigate the effectiveness of scoliosis surgery, in terms of quality of life, functional status, respiratory function, and life expectancy.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 199 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 197 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 27 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 24 12%
Student > Bachelor 22 11%
Researcher 17 9%
Student > Postgraduate 12 6%
Other 37 19%
Unknown 60 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 84 42%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 7%
Psychology 8 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 2%
Other 19 10%
Unknown 64 32%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 13 October 2015.
All research outputs
of 22,830,751 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 12,320 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 274,926 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 290 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,830,751 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 84th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,320 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 30.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% 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 274,926 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 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 290 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.