↓ Skip to main content

Review of Pediatric Spondylolysis and Spondylolisthesis

Overview of attention for article published in Sports Medicine & Arthroscopy Review, December 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (67th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
patent
3 patents

Citations

dimensions_citation
27 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
108 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
Review of Pediatric Spondylolysis and Spondylolisthesis
Published in
Sports Medicine & Arthroscopy Review, December 2016
DOI 10.1097/jsa.0000000000000127
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rachel M. Randall, Michael Silverstein, Ryan Goodwin

Abstract

Pediatric spondylolysis and spondylolisthesis present with a wide spectrum of pathology and clinical findings, including back pain, leg pain, crouch gait, or neurological deficit. The treatment of spondylolysis alone is typically conservative with bracing, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug, and activity restriction, but refractory pain can be successfully surgically managed with intralaminar compression screw, wires, or pedicle screws with rods and laminar hook constructs. The treatment of dysplastic spondylolisthesis is aggressive to prevent neurological deficit, whereas even high-grade isthmic slips can be treated safely with nonoperative measures if no significant neurological deficits are present. However, patients with higher slip angles tend to progress and require fusion. More long-term data are needed to compare the outcomes of operative versus nonoperative treatment of high-grade slips. Although more evidence will be helpful in guiding surgical treatment, fortunately, the vast majority of these patients are successfully managed nonsurgically.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 108 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 108 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 16 15%
Student > Master 10 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 9%
Student > Postgraduate 9 8%
Other 7 6%
Other 22 20%
Unknown 34 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 44 41%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 9%
Unspecified 3 3%
Sports and Recreations 3 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 2%
Other 8 7%
Unknown 38 35%
Attention Score in Context

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 05 March 2024.
All research outputs
#7,960,512
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Sports Medicine & Arthroscopy Review
#64
of 358 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#131,558
of 416,449 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Sports Medicine & Arthroscopy Review
#3
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 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 358 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% 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 416,449 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 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 6 of them.