| Title |
Development of a clinical diagnosis support tool to identify patients with lumbar spinal stenosis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
European Spine Journal, June 2007
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00586-007-0402-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Shinichi Konno, Yasuaki Hayashino, Shunichi Fukuhara, Shinichi Kikuchi, Kiyoshi Kaneda, Atsushi Seichi, Kazuhiro Chiba, Kazuhiko Satomi, Kensei Nagata, Shinya Kawai |
| Abstract |
No clinical diagnostic support tool can help identify patients with LSS. Simple diagnostic tool may improve the accuracy of the diagnosis of LSS. The aim of this study was to develop a simple clinical diagnostic tool that may help physicians to diagnose LSS in patients with lower leg symptoms. Patients with pain or numbness of the lower legs were prospectively enrolled. The diagnosis of LSS by experienced orthopedic specialists was the outcome measure. Multivariable logistic regression analysis identified factors that predicted LSS; a simple clinical prediction rule was developed by assigning a risk score to each item based on the estimated beta-coefficients. From December 2002 to December 2004, 104 orthopedic physicians from 22 clinics and 50 hospitals evaluated 468 patients. Two items of physical examination, three items of patients' symptom, and five items of physical examination were included in the final scoring system as a result of multiple logistic regression analysis. The sum of the risk scores for each patient ranged from -2 to 16. The Hosmer-Lemeshow statistic was 11.30 (P = 0.1851); the area under the ROC curve was 0.918. The clinical diagnostic support tool had a sensitivity of 92.8% and a specificity of 72.0%. The prevalence of LSS was 6.3% in the bottom quartile of the risk score (-2 to 5) and 99.0% in the top quartile (12 to 16). We developed a simple clinical diagnostic support tool to identify patients with LSS. Further studies are needed to validate this tool in primary care settings. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 106 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Japan | 1 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 104 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 19 | 18% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 13 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 13 | 12% |
| Other | 9 | 8% |
| Student > Master | 9 | 8% |
| Other | 26 | 25% |
| Unknown | 17 | 16% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 60 | 57% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 14 | 13% |
| Sports and Recreations | 3 | 3% |
| Design | 2 | 2% |
| Engineering | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 5 | 5% |
| Unknown | 20 | 19% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 29 September 2023.
All research outputs
#4,695,422
of 22,783,848 outputs
Outputs from European Spine Journal
#539
of 4,619 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#13,176
of 70,459 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Spine Journal
#10
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,783,848 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 76th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,619 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% 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 70,459 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 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.