↓ Skip to main content

Reliability of clinical tests to evaluate nerve function and mechanosensitivity of the upper limb peripheral nervous system

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 (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (89th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
18 X users
facebook
9 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
106 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
536 Mendeley
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
Reliability of clinical tests to evaluate nerve function and mechanosensitivity of the upper limb peripheral nervous system
Published in
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, January 2009
DOI 10.1186/1471-2474-10-11
Pubmed ID
Authors

Annina B Schmid, Florian Brunner, Hannu Luomajoki, Ulrike Held, Lucas M Bachmann, Sabine Künzer, Michel W Coppieters

Abstract

Clinical tests to assess peripheral nerve disorders can be classified into two categories: tests for afferent/efferent nerve function such as nerve conduction (bedside neurological examination) and tests for increased mechanosensitivity (e.g. upper limb neurodynamic tests (ULNTs) and nerve palpation). Reliability reports of nerve palpation and the interpretation of neurodynamic tests are scarce. This study therefore investigated the intertester reliability of nerve palpation and ULNTs. ULNTs were interpreted based on symptom reproduction and structural differentiation. To put the reliability of these tests in perspective, a comparison with the reliability of clinical tests for nerve function was made.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 18 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 536 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 5 <1%
Chile 2 <1%
Switzerland 2 <1%
Portugal 2 <1%
Italy 2 <1%
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 518 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 118 22%
Student > Bachelor 58 11%
Other 49 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 45 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 39 7%
Other 136 25%
Unknown 91 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 214 40%
Nursing and Health Professions 120 22%
Sports and Recreations 25 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 11 2%
Neuroscience 11 2%
Other 44 8%
Unknown 111 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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 09 October 2019.
All research outputs
#2,111,321
of 23,199,478 outputs
Outputs from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#425
of 4,121 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#9,929
of 172,043 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#3
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,199,478 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,121 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 89% 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 172,043 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 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.