↓ Skip to main content

Correlations between sedimentation sign, dural sac cross-sectional area, and clinical symptoms of degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis

Overview of attention for article published in European Spine Journal, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (67th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
27 Mendeley
Title
Correlations between sedimentation sign, dural sac cross-sectional area, and clinical symptoms of degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis
Published in
European Spine Journal, November 2017
DOI 10.1007/s00586-017-5374-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sangbong Ko

Abstract

In this study, we addressed the correlation between the cross-sectional area (CSA) of the dural sac and the nerve root sedimentation sign (SedSign) and the correlation between the distance of claudication and the CSA of the dural sac or SedSign in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis. We also evaluated the reliability of clinical symptom prediction. We checked claudication distance using a questionnaire, and we gauged low back pain when standing, referred pain, and radiating pain using visual analog scale scores. Three observers measured the CSA of the dural sac and SedSign, and normal nerve root sedimentation was classified as negative (N) and the absence of nerve root sedimentation was positive (P). P was sub-classified as positive with room [P(+); empty space apparent in the dura] or positive without room [P(-); no empty space in the dura]. SedSign reflected ongoing sedimentation inside the spinal canal of the nerve roots. We demonstrated negative sedimentation for the nerve root except for exiting nerve roots that settled into more than half of the dorsal region of the spinal canal and positive sedimentation as compressed nerve roots or as distribution of nerve roots that conglomerated from the ventral to the dorsal part of the equator as nerve roots. We evaluated functional outcomes using the Oswestry Disability Index and Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire. One-way ANOVAs, Chi square tests, and correlation analyses evaluated the correlation CSAs and SedSigns. The total CSAs for the 716 sites were 98.63 ± 34.38 for N, 76.78 ± 28.78 for P(+), and 55.43 ± 27.77 for P(-), which were all statistically significant (p = 0.01). The correlations between pain and SedSign were not statistically significant (p > 0.05). There was no statistical significance in the correlations between the distance of the claudication and the CSA of the dura sac and the SedSign and between the functional score and the SedSign (both p > 0.05). Increasing severity of SedSign indicates progressively smaller dural sac CSA, but there is an inconsistent association with clinical symptoms. Therefore, it is reasonable to suggest that spinal stenosis is severe in patients with severe symptoms.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 27 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 27 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 7 26%
Researcher 4 15%
Student > Postgraduate 4 15%
Student > Bachelor 2 7%
Student > Master 1 4%
Other 3 11%
Unknown 6 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 52%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 4%
Physics and Astronomy 1 4%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 4%
Sports and Recreations 1 4%
Other 3 11%
Unknown 6 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 July 2018.
All research outputs
#6,404,289
of 23,007,887 outputs
Outputs from European Spine Journal
#763
of 4,665 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#106,986
of 331,365 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Spine Journal
#9
of 49 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,007,887 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,665 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% 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 331,365 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 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 49 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.