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 |
The Reliability of Sagittal Pelvic Parameters
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Spine, February 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1097/brs.0000000000000720 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Alba Vila-Casademunt, Ferran Pellisé, Emre Acaroglu, Francisco Javier Sánchez Pérez-Grueso, Mar Pérez Martín-Buitrago, Tunay Sanli, Sule Yakici, Ana García de Frutos, Antonia Matamalas, José Miguel Sánchez-Márquez, Ibrahim Obeid, Onur Yaman, Juan Bagó |
| Abstract |
Study Design. Sagittal Pelvic Parameters (SPP) of a representative patient sample drawn from a consecutive adult spinal deformity database were measured using Surgimap Spine. Estimated coefficient of reliability ICC (95% CI), Standard Error of Measurement (SEM) and Mean Absolute Deviation (MAD) were used for the analysis.Objective. The primary objective of this study was to assess the reliability of SPP measurements using Surgimap Spine. The secondary objective was to evaluate the impact of pelvic instrumentation as well as the impact of user expertise.Summary of Background Data. The radiographic measurement of SPP is increasingly recognized as playing a critical role in establishing the surgical goals and surgical strategy of many spinal disorders. Although instrumented flat-back is a common cause of sagittal malalignment, to our knowledge, SPP measurement reliability has never been assessed in instrumented spines.Methods. Sixty-three adult full-spine standing lateral radiographs (31 with lumbosacral instrumentation) were measured twice by 13 observers using Surgimap Spine. Observers were stratified into 3 levels of experience: high (research coordinators, 4), mid (senior surgeons, 5) and low (junior surgeons, 4). Research coordinators trained all surgeons for less than 30 minutes. Parameters measured were: Pelvic Incidence (PI), Pelvic Tilt (PT) and Sacral Slope (SS).Results. Thirteen observers and 63 radiographs generated 817 observations (2 misses). Overall inter- and intra-observer reliability of SPP measurement was excellent (ICC>0.85). Lumbosacral instrumentation did not modify intra-observer reliability but reduced significantly inter-observer reliability of PT (p = 0.006) and SS (p = 0.007). Experience did not affect intra-observer reliability but inter-observer reliability of highly experienced observers was significantly lower (p<0.05) than among less experienced observers.Conclusions. Measurement of SPP using Surgimap Spine equals or improves previously reported reliability data. Lumbosacral instrumentation reduces inter-observer reliability taking it from excellent to moderate in the SS measurement. Inexperienced observers can measure SPP reliably following a short tutorial. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 2 | 50% |
| United States | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 1 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 25% |
| Scientists | 1 | 25% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 25% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 42 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 41 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 12 | 29% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 12% |
| Other | 5 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 7% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 8 | 19% |
| Unknown | 7 | 17% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 20 | 48% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 7% |
| Engineering | 2 | 5% |
| Psychology | 2 | 5% |
| Environmental Science | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 4 | 10% |
| Unknown | 10 | 24% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 26 February 2015.
All research outputs
#15,739,529
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Spine
#5,135
of 8,451 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#195,739
of 361,169 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Spine
#57
of 124 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,451 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.9. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 361,169 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 124 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its contemporaries.