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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Zygapophysial joint blocks in chronic low back pain: a test of Revel's model as a screening test
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, November 2004
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2474-5-43 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Mark Laslett, Birgitta Öberg, Charles N Aprill, Barry McDonald |
| Abstract |
Only controlled blocks are capable of confirming the zygapophysial joints (ZJ) as the pain generator in LBP patients. However, previous workers have found that a cluster of clinical signs ("Revel's criteria"), may be valuable in predicting the results of an initial screening ZJ block. It was suggested that these clinical findings are unsuitable for diagnosis, but may be of value in selecting patients for diagnostic blocks of the lumbar ZJ's. To constitute evidence in favour of a clinical management strategy, these results need confirmation. This study evaluates the utility of 'Revel's criteria' as a screening tool for selection of chronic low back pain patients for controlled ZJ diagnostic blocks. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 States | 2 | 29% |
| New Zealand | 1 | 14% |
| Finland | 1 | 14% |
| Canada | 1 | 14% |
| Unknown | 2 | 29% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 7 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 116 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 2 | 2% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| New Zealand | 1 | <1% |
| Qatar | 1 | <1% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 109 | 94% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 19 | 16% |
| Other | 18 | 16% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 13 | 11% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 10 | 9% |
| Researcher | 8 | 7% |
| Other | 24 | 21% |
| Unknown | 24 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 61 | 53% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 12 | 10% |
| Psychology | 5 | 4% |
| Sports and Recreations | 3 | 3% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 6 | 5% |
| Unknown | 27 | 23% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 January 2024.
All research outputs
#7,869,607
of 25,192,722 outputs
Outputs from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#1,519
of 4,377 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#18,746
of 58,157 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#1
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,192,722 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,377 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% 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 58,157 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2 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